Department of Community Services & Whipp

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES & WHIPP

[2008] FamCA 182

FAMILY LAW – CHILD ABDUCTION – Hague Abduction Convention Proceedings – where baby born in Australia and by agreement taken to New York – interim orders made in Australia prior to child’s departure to USA - where baby removed from New York and brought back to Australia by mother – where mother alleges child habitually resident in Australia - habitual residence of the child – where father not recorded upon child’s birth certificate – parentage presumptions - where mother denies father has rights of custody – Paternity and custody petitions filed by the father in the Family Court of the State of New York not served upon mother prior to child’s removal - Family Court of the State of New York not exercising rights of custody - consent and acquiesce discussed –– expert evidence on New York Family Law – where Central Authority fails to establish threshold conditions for application of Abduction convention – application dismissed

FAMILY LAW – CHILD ABDUCTION – Hague Abduction Convention Proceedings – Practice and Procedure – adjournment application - spirit of the Abduction Convention and the importance of these proceedings being dealt with promptly

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Parenting orders – shared parental responsibility

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Parentage Orders – parentage presumptions

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 4, 61C, 65C, 65DAC, 65DAE, 65Y, 69P, 69Q, 69R, 69S, 69T, Pt VII, Div 12
Family Law (Child Abduction Convention) Regulations 1986 (Cth) regs 14, 15, 16(1A), (19)(1), Art 1, 3, 7, 11
Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) r 19.50
Births Deaths & Marriages Registration Act 1995 (NSW) s 18(c)
Status of Children Act 1996 (NSW) s 19, 20(1)(A)
Status of Children Regulations 2003 (NSW) r 19
Domestic Relations Law s 76, Art 5-A
Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction & Enforcement Act s 75-d

Police Commission of South Australia v Temple (No. 2) (1993) FLC 92-424
De L v Director General, NSW Department of Community Services (1996) FLC 92-706
Director General Department of Family Youth & Community Care v Bennett (2000) FLC 93-011
Gazi v Gazi (1993) FLC 92-341
Re E (A Minor) (Abduction) (1989) 1 FLR 135
P v P (Minors) (Child Abduction) (1992) 1 FLR 155
Panayotides v Panayotides (1997) FLC 92-733
Cooper and Casey (1995) FLC 92-575
Re B (Minors) (Abduction No. 2) (1993) 1 FLR 993
Re F (A Minor) (Child Abduction) (1992) 1 FLR 548
DW and Director General, Department of Child Safety (2006) FLC 93-255
Re J (A Minor) (Abduction: Custody Rights) [1990] 2 AC 562
HZ v State Central Authority (2006) FLC 93-264
Re J (A Minor) (1990) 3 WLR 949
Re B (A Minor) (1993) 1 FLR 993
State Central Authority v McCall (1995) FLC 92-552
Department of Health and Community Services v Casse (1995) FLC 92-629
Mozes v Mozes (2001) 239 F. 3d 1067 (9th Cir.2001)
Goode and Goode (2006) FLC 93-286
P & Commonwealth Central Authority (2000) FamCA 461
S v H (Abduction: Access Rights) [1997] 1 FLR 971
Re B (A Minor) (Abduction) [1994] 2 FLR 249
Brown & Burke [2007] FamCA 1421
Secretary, Attorney General’s Department v TS (2001) FLC 93-063
Re: W; Re B (Child Abduction: Unmarried father) [1998] 2 FLR
Brooke & Director General, Department of Community Services (2002) FLC 93-109
Re H (A Minor) (Abduction: Rights of Custody) (2000) 2 AC 291
B v UK (2001) FLR 1
Friedrich v Friedrich 6 Circ (1996)
Police Commissioner of South Australia v Temple (No. 1) (1993) FLC 92-365
Re H (Abduction: Acquiescence) (1998) AC 72
P v Director General, Department of Community Services [2002] FamCA 321
DP v Central Authority; JLM v Director-General, NSW Department of Community Services (2001) 180 ALR 402

APPLICANT:

DIRECTOR GENERAL DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES

RESPONDENT:

MS WHIPP

FILE NUMBER:

(P)SYC

7678

2007

DATE DELIVERED:

7 March 2008

PLACE DELIVERED:

Newcastle

JUDGMENT OF:

The Hon. Justice Ryan

HEARING DATES:

14 January 2008 and written submissions

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

Ms Hartstein

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Legal Services Unit, Department of Community Services

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Mr Twigg and Respondent in person

RESPONDENT:

Adrian Twigg and Co.

Orders

That the application filed by the Department of Community Services as the Central Authority on 6 November 2007 is dismissed.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Department of Community Services & Whipp is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

FILE NUMBER: (P)SYC7678 of 2007

DIRECTOR GENERAL DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES

Applicant

And

MS WHIPP

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

These are proceedings brought pursuant to the Family Law (Child Abduction Convention) Regulations 1986 (Cth). By these regulations Australia ratified the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, (“the Abduction Convention”). The Abduction Convention provides a mechanism for the prompt return of wrongfully removed or retained children between contracting states.
The Director-General of the Department of Community Services as the Australian Central Authority started these proceedings with its application filed on 6 November 2007. By this application the Central Authority seeks a suite of orders for the return to the United States of America of a child. The child was born in Australia in March 2007 and with her mother, the respondent, (“the mother”) arrived in New York on 22 July 2007. Without notice to Mr Goldstein, who asserts he is the child’s father (“the father”), the mother removed the child from New York on 15 September 2007. After a brief sojourn in Israel, the mother and the child returned to Australia on 24 October 2007. As soon as the father learned that the child had arrived back in Australia, he completed an application under the Abduction Convention seeking that Australia returns the child to the United States, where he alleges she is habitually resident and from where he says she was wrongfully removed.
The mother says that the Abduction Convention does not apply and submits that the Central Authority’s application must be dismissed. In short, the mother submits that at all times since the child’s birth she and the child have been habitually resident in Australia. Although she has worked overseas, including in the United States, the mother denies abandoning habitual residence in Australia, either hers or the child’s. Even if the child was habitually resident in the United States she says that neither the father nor the Family Court of New York (in which the father commenced proceedings prior to the child’s removal) had rights of custody when the child was removed and that the father was not actually exercising rights of custody in relation to the child. In the event that the threshold requirements for the Abduction Convention’s application are established she raises a series of defences; specifically that the father consented to or acquiesced in the child’s removal from New York and that there is a grave risk that the child’s return would expose her to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place her in an intolerable situation.
The Central Authority carries the onus of establishing that the Abduction Convention applies to the child. As a threshold requirement reg 16(1A) provides that a removal or retention is wrongful if:
(a)the child was under 16; and
(b) the child habitually resided in the Convention country immediately before the child’s removal to, or retention in, Australia; and
(c) the person, institution or other body seeking the child’s return had rights of custody in relation to the child under the law of the country in which the child habitually resided immediately before the child’s removal to, or retention in, Australia; and
(d) the child’s removal to, or retention in, Australia is in breach of those rights of custody; and
(e) at the time of the child’s removal or retention, the person, institution or other body:
(i)was actually exercising the rights of custody (either jointly or alone); or
(ii)would have exercised those rights if the child had not been removed or retained.
In this case if the Central Authority establishes the reg 16(1A) requirements, unless the mother establishes one of the Abduction Convention defences, I am obliged to order the child’s return to the United States.

Background facts

The mother was born in Australia in 1967. The mother is an Australian citizen and her family lives here. She does not have United States citizenship.
The father was born in the United States of America in November 1971 and has always lived there. The father is a United States citizen and his family lives there. He does not have Australian citizenship. There is no doubt that the father is habitually resident in the United States.
The mother has worked internationally in a professional position. The mother has lived and worked in numerous countries with the majority of her time spent outside Australia. It is worth noting that the mother regularly returned to Australia, maintained a home at Sydney and treated Australia as her home base. The mother does not own property in any other country and has never taken out citizenship of another country.
At one stage and possibly before taking up a position at C Company, the mother worked for one year in Tokyo. Although offered a one year extension with that employer, she declined and returned to Australia.
In about 1999/2000, the mother commenced employment with C Company, a Florida based company. This required that she spend a large portion of her time in Tokyo and Florida.
In 2002, the mother commenced employment for an Australian based company. In this position she travelled extensively throughout Europe, the USA and Asia.
The mother then decided to return to her profession and, if possible work for a period in New York.
In May 2005, the mother travelled to New York on a tourist visa. Upon her arrival and until July 2005, the mother attended a professional training course. During the period she was in New York, the mother sought future employment in New York.
In September 2005, the mother returned to Australia where she worked in a contract position until January 2006.
In February 2006, the mother returned to New York where, later that month she completed the requirements for licensing in her profession in the United States. Having completed that process, the mother remained in New York looking for work.
The mother and the father met in March 2006 in New York. Almost immediately they began dating and commenced a sexual relationship. They did not cohabit.
On 9 May 2006, the mother returned to Australia and began looking for employment in the United States. She returned to Australia because her tourist visa which enabled her to remain in the United States had expired. Unless she succeeded in finding rewarding and interesting work in the United States, the mother intended to remain in Australia and complete studies previously begun at an Australian institution. Having submitted between 60 and 80 job applications, the mother secured four job interviews. Using a tourist visa she returned to New York for these interviews.
On 17 July 2006, the mother was offered a position with a New York company. Her employer company arranged her work visa. The mother accepted their employment offer on 24 July 2006. The company paid for her to fly to Toronto, Canada where she remained for a few days before her category E-3 visa issued. This visa enabled the mother to work with her employers (and no one else) until 1 August 2008. An E-3 visa provides for entry on a non-permanent basis into the United States. In order to qualify for an E-3 visa an applicant must satisfy the consular officer that s/he intends to depart the United States upon the visa’s termination. An applicant may apply to renew an E-3 visa provided s/he does not intend to permanently remain in the United States. In the event that the mother’s nominated employment ended she was entitled to remain in the United States for 10 days. While she could apply to change employers, the gap between employment can be no longer than 10 days during which a new employer is required to lodge a Labor Condition Application. The mother started work in New York at the end of August 2006.
At the end of July 2006, the mother learned that she was pregnant. As she believed she was using effective contraception this came as a surprise to her as indeed it did to the father. The notion of abortion is anathema to the mother and her pregnancy required that she revaluate her plans to pursue a period of living and working in New York. When the mother learned she was pregnant the father was holidaying in Israel. Upon his return on 2 August 2006 the mother told him she was pregnant. This news introduced a tumultuous element into a casual relationship in which neither participant had made an ongoing commitment to the other. The father and the mother maintained separate residences and each was financially independent.
During the pregnancy the father and the mother had many discussions concerning their relationship, their child’s impending birth and future support. Initially the mother wanted to marry the father, which suggestion he did not embrace. With that option unavailable, she was torn between her desire to work in New York and the difficulties she anticipated caring for the baby as a working single parent without family support. One particular uncertainty centred upon how she wound find motherhood and the baby herself, factors which could not be addressed until after the child’s birth. By November-December 2006, she was leaning towards returning to Australia and told the father that this was her intention. The father agrees that the mother told him of her desire to have one year off work following the baby’s birth, a step she thought was more easily implemented in Australia. However he explains that these comments were part of many conversations in which “she expressed ambivalence and changes of plans without ever formulating or expressing any concrete plan whatsoever.”
In November 2006, the mother rented a furnished apartment which she rented without a lease month to month.
Towards the end of January 2007, the father and the mother attended a meeting with a social worker. During the meeting the father said he wanted a paternity test and raised questions about the mother’s assertion that conception occurred through the failure of her birth control measures. So as to reinforce the integrity of her representations, on 18 January 2007 the mother offered to undergo a lie detector test. As it turned out the test did not occur.
Eventually the mother decided she would return to Australia for her confinement where she would have family support. At this stage the mother hoped to be able to return to her job in New York and see how she and the baby would manage. While this was her desire, she was far from sure that she and the baby would manage away from her family support and basically approached her and the baby’s future with caution. Having discussed her desire to have the baby in Australia with the father, he agreed to accompany her and be present for the baby’s birth. Notwithstanding their deteriorating relationship the mother explains “I still wanted [the child] to have a father”. At no stage did the father decide to stay in Australia indefinitely and at all times he planned, that not long after the baby’s birth, he would return to New York.
The mother arranged four weeks recreation leave and 12 weeks maternity leave from her New York company. This enabled her to fly back to Australia at 36 weeks gestation and be with “my family for the delivery and post delivery period”. The mother agreed with her employer that she would recommence with them no later than 1 July 2007. The mother sub-let her apartment with the rental she received offsetting her costs incurred in retaining it while she was in Australia.
The mother and the father arrived in Australia on 21 February 2007. The father was issued a tourist visa. For a few days following their arrival the father and the mother lived at her parent’s home. When tensions developed between the father and the mother’s parents, he moved out and rented separate accommodation in another suburb. Thereafter and until the child’s birth, the father and the mother had limited contact.
The child was born in March 2007. The father was present during the child’s birth and, until the mother and the child were discharged from hospital, spent large parts of each day with them.
Upon their discharge from hospital, the mother and the child lived with her parents. Following the child’s birth the father spent significant time with her in the mother’s presence. For the first six weeks he saw her daily. Although the father wanted to continue daily contact with the child but on terms which allowed him time alone with her, the mother disagreed. Following further disagreement on 3 May 2007, the mother temporarily suspended the father’s visits with the child. Although the father and the mother disagree upon the duration and frequency of his subsequent visits, there is no dispute that until the mother and the child returned to New York he saw the child often.
On 11 May 2007, the father’s Australian lawyers, Barkus Edwards Doolan, wrote to the mother concerning the child’s future care. In this letter the father suggests that the two parents attend mediation and highlights his proposals for the child’s future care. Summarised he proposes that the parents have equal shared parental responsibility, that the child lives with the mother in either New South Wales or the United States (the choice being the mother’s), that the mother is restrained from removing the child from New South Wales without his approval, that he is registered on the child’s birth certificate and proposes arrangements to see the child pending his departure from Australia. The mother regarded this correspondence as inflammatory.
When his lawyers failed to achieve the mother’s agreement to attend mediation on 7 June 2007, the father wrote to her explaining that he was contemplating legal proceedings and setting out his desire to achieve a cooperative parental relationship with the mother. His sentiments demonstrate a sensitive and intelligent approach to the situation and leave no room for doubting his desire to be involved in the child’s life. Concerning the child’s future care and residence he says:
Your primary concern seems to be an agreement to allow you, should you and [the child] come to New York, to leave the U.S. with [the child] if things don’t work out. As I stated to you in person on May 18^th and again on the phone on May 20^th, I agree in principle to this, provided I am given 30 days notice and that all other visitation and responsibility terms are agreed upon. I have also stated repeatedly that, if [the child] lives in New York, I would assist beyond the terms of my legal obligations to make life easier for you and [the child] by helping to pay for a nanny and extra expenses that can arise from living in the city. Your career is obviously important to you, since over the course of two years you [completed your qualifications and] went on to secure a good position in a top [company]. I want to support you in your decision not to give that up, and also support out daughter by giving her access to both her parents. I see it as a win-win situation. Our ability to successfully come together in the caring of our daughter is already proven, as we weathered many challenges both before her birth and in the first six weeks of her life.
[The child] is in our lives now and for her sake it would be a meaningful gesture and would set a nice precedent going forward if we could clear the air of our petty disagreements and start looking at the larger, long term picture. Based on the last several weeks I feel the only way to successfully accomplish this is by both of us coming to the table and forming an agreement that is mutually beneficial and legally binding.
Over the last several weeks we have had many conversations about [the child’s] future that have gone around in circles to no conclusion, even after I conceded to your terms for the New York agreement. There have been threats and provocations and a general unwillingness to reach compromise through discussion. This is a clear indication to me that we, left alone, are not capable of advancing the conversation to a point where we resolve actual issues.

On 20 June 2007, the father commenced parenting proceedings in the Family Court of Australia in Sydney.[1] The father applied for the following orders:
[1]Exhibit “D”
1.That the child live with the mother.
2.That the child spend time with the father as follows:
When the child is present in Sydney:
2.1from when the child is 3 months old:
2.1.1for one block period each alternate day of 6 hours’ duration;
2.1.2from 3.00 pm Friday to 7.00 pm Saturday each alternate week;
2.1.3each Jewish holiday, to commence 2 hours before sundown on the eve of the holiday and to conclude 2 hours after sundown on the last day of the holiday;
2.2from when the child is 6 months, for one block period each alternate day of 8 hours’ duration in lieu of paragraph 2.1.1 (and the time spent referred to in paragraphs 2.1.1 and 2.1.3 shall continue);
2.3from when the child is 9 months, for one block period each alternate day of 12 hours’ duration in lieu of paragraph 2.2 (and the time spent referred to in paragraphs 2.1.2 and 2.1.3 shall continue);
2.4from when the child attains 1 year of age, the following times in lieu of paragraph 2.3:
2.4.1from 3.00 pm Tuesday to 7.00 pm Wednesday each week;
2.4.2from 3.00 pm Friday to 7.00 pm Saturday each week;
2.4.3from 3.00 pm Sunday to 7.00 pm Monday each week;
2.4.4each Jewish holiday to commence 2 hours before sundown on the eve of the holiday and to conclude 2 hours after sundown on the last day of the holiday;
2.5at all other times as agreed between the parties in writing which includes by email.
3.For the purpose of facilitating the period the child is to spend with the father, the father shall collect the child from, and return the child to, the mother’s residence.
4.That the father and the mother have equal shared parental responsibility in consultation with one another for making decisions on major long-term issues relating to the child.
5.That the mother have responsibility for making decisions for non-major long term issues relating to the child when she live/s with or spends time with her, and the father have responsibility for making such decisions when the child is living with or spending time with him.
6.That each party notify the other, as soon as possible and in any event within 24 hours, of any serious injury of illness suffered by the child whilst with that party.
7.That each party notify the other, not more than 24 hours after any change to their address and/or landline and/or mobile telephone numbers and/or their email address.
8.That each parent notify the other of the address and telephone number/s of the place/s where the child will be staying during holidays spent away from their residence, not later than 48 hours prior to the commencement of any holiday period.
9.That the mother provide to the father the names, addresses and telephone numbers of all medical professionals who may treat the child and details of all medical appointments made for the child at least 72 hours prior to such appointment and authorise each of the medical professionals in writing to provide copies of any test results, letters of referrals, reports and letters received from other medical professionals to the father and authorise them to discuss any aspect of the child’s health with the father.
10.That the mother do all acts and things and sign all documents to record the father’s name as the father of the child on the birth certificate for the child issued by the Registry of Births, Deaths & Marriages.
11.That the mother do all acts and things and sign all documents to change the child’s name to […Goldstein] .
12.That the father communicate with the child each Friday in person if the father is residing in Sydney and by telephone if the father is residing overseas for the purpose of blessing the child and the mother shall facilitate such communication between the father and the child.
13.That the Australian Federal Police are requested to place the name of the child on the Airport Watch List in force at all international points of arrival and departure in the Commonwealth of Australia and retain the child’s name on the watch list until further order of the Court.
14.That the mother be restrained from changing the residence of the child from a place outside the Sydney metropolitan area without the prior written consent of the father.
15.That neither party shall remove the child from the Commonwealth of Australia without the prior written consider of the other party.
By order 14 the mother would have been unable to remove the child from Sydney unless the father agreed. This application evinces an intention that the child live with her mother in Australia or such other place as the parties later agree.
By no later than 24 June 2007, the mother told the father that her maternity leave expired on 2 July 2007 and that her employment was jeopardised if she returned late.
On 26 June 2007 the mother filed an Application in a Case[2] in the Family Court at Sydney which was made returnable on 3 July 2007. Paul and Paul Lawyers are recorded as being the mother’s solicitors. In this application the mother applied for the following orders:
1.That pursuant to s 65Y of the Family Law Act 1975 (“the Act”) the applicant mother be permitted to take the child […] born […] March 2007 out of the Commonwealth of Australia.
2.That the child reside with the mother.
3.That the father pay the costs of an incidental to this application unless these orders are consented to.
4.That the particulars of the child be removed from the airport watch list.
5.That the applicant have leave to serve Short Notice of this Application.
[2] Exhibit “E”
On 3 July 2007, the mother’s application filed 26 June 2007 was adjourned for hearing the following day. Her application evinces a clear intention that she has sole parental authority, that the child lives with her and that she can take her out of Australia for New York.
On 4 July 2007, the parties, both of whom were represented by counsel, appeared before Justice Mushin. When the mother appeared on 4 July 2007 she had not filed a Response to the father’s application. Curiously the mother’s counsel describes her stance as tantamount to an appearance under protest, in which she invited the court to dismiss the father’s application but make orders in accordance with hers. That day, Mushin J made a series of orders which were subsequently amended pursuant to the slip rule. The amended orders are set out below.
Pending and until the assumption by a Court of competent jurisdiction in the State of New York in the United States of America of all issues regarding parenting of the child […] born […] March 2007:
It is ordered by Consent that:
1.The parties have equal shared parental responsibility of and for the said child.
2.The parties be granted leave to remove the child from the Commonwealth of Australia upon the following terms:
a.the parties travel together with the child as directly as is feasible to the State of New York by way of Los Angeles such travel to be on [flight number] departing Sydney on Monday 9 July 2007 and any other necessary connecting flights; and
b.within 72 hours of arrival in New York the parties submit themselves to a Court of competent jurisdiction thereat in relation to the parenting of the said child.
3.All costs of and incidental to the child’s flight in accordance with these orders be shared equally between the parties.
4.Forthwith upon the said Court assuming the said jurisdiction paragraphs 1, 2, 4 and 5 be and are thereby discharged without further application.
5.Any order pursuant to which the parties or either of them are restrained from removing the child from the Commonwealth of Australia be and is hereby discharged to enable travel I accordance with these orders.
6.The Court forward a copy of this order to the Australian Federal Police.
It is ordered that:
7.Between now and the said departure from the Commonwealth of Australia the father spend time with the child for no more than 1 hour on each of Thursday 5^th July, Friday 6^th July, Saturday 7^th July and Sunday 8^th July 2007 and for that purpose the father be and is hereby authorised to remove the child from the mother’s current residence for the purpose of taking her for an outing provided however that such outing not take place in the case of either inclement weather or the child’s care requirements or other like factor.
It is requested that:
8.The Registrar of Birth, Deaths and Marriages of the State of New South Wales consider the inclusion of the father’s name on the birth certificate of the said child.
It is further ordered that:
9.To give full effect to paragraph 8 hereof the mother forthwith do all things and sign all documents necessary to enable the said Registrar’s consideration referred to therein.
10.All documents produced on subpoena in these proceedings be retained by the Sydney Registry of the Court and be made available to any Court of competent jurisdiction of the United States of America upon request PROVIDED HOWEVER that in the event that no such request is received within a period of 3 months such documents be thereupon returned to the person or persons producing the same.
11.All applications be otherwise dismissed and removed from the list of cases awaiting hearing.
12.Liberty be reserved to either party to apply on short notice, any such application to be made in the first instance to Justice Mushin if reasonably available and if necessary by telephone or video-link.
It is certified:
13.Pursuant to Rule 19.50 of the Family Law Rules 2004 this matter reasonably required the attendance of counsel.
The mother contacted the Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages on 6 July 2007. Having spoken to a registry officer, the mother says she understood that all she needed to do in order to comply with Mushin J’s orders was provide to the Registry a copy of his Honours orders and a letter explaining the reason for sending them. Later that day, the mother attended the Family Court in Sydney and obtained a copy of the orders. Over the weekend she prepared a letter and assembled the material for posting. Because the mother needed to be at Sydney airport early in the morning on Monday 9 July 2007, she gave the letter to her father and asked him to post it for her.
When the father visited the child at her maternal grandparent’s home on Sunday 8 July 2007, he handed the mother an envelope containing a bundle of documents relating to amending the child’s birth registration details. The documents were blank and the mother decided that she would complete them in New York and post them to Australia. Later that afternoon she spoke with the father and confirmed that she and the child were booked on the flight referred to in the 4 July 2007 orders and that she planned to travel as scheduled.
On 9 July 2007, the mother and the child boarded a Qantas flight departing Sydney for New York. The father, who was ordered to travel on the same flight, failed to board. Through his lawyers he activated the PACE alert notice. As the 4 July 2007 orders required both parents to travel with the child, the mother and the child were removed from the plane. The father did not board the plane nor consent to the child’s departure because the mother had failed to do all things required to complete the documents necessary for his inclusion upon the child’s birth records. He knew in advance that his failure to board would result in the mother and the child’s removal from the plane. As is apparent from the mother’s letter to Barkus Edwards Doolan on 16 July 2007, she denies failing to comply with her obligations under the 4 July 2007 orders and explains the steps she has taken to ensure the amendment to the child’s birth records. She fails to disclose that the same day she attended the New South Wales Registry of Births Deaths and Marriages and told them that she was unsure if Mr Goldstein is the child’s father and asked that the amendment to the child’s birth records be refused.
By letter dated 11 July 2007 addressed to the father’s Australian lawyers, the mother reiterated her position that she wished remain free to permanently leave the United States with the child and postulated that she would give the father thirty days notice. The effect of this letter is to reinforce that the mother has no settled intention to remain in the United States and, more relevantly, that although returning to New York she had not abandoned Australia as her and the child’s habitual residence.
On 17 July 2007, the parenting proceedings were urgently listed before Mushin J so that his Honour could consider further the mother’s compliance with his earlier orders and her desire to immediately depart Australia. On this occasion the mother appeared unrepresented. His Honour stood the proceedings out of his list without further orders.
On 17 July 2007, the mother and the father completed a pro forma statutory declaration so as to add the father’s details to the child’s birth records. All relevant documents were provided to the father’s solicitors in the expectation that they would be promptly lodged with NSW Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages.
On 19 July 2007 the proceedings came before Justice Le Poer Trench. I infer that the father was satisfied that he had everything from the mother which he needed to include his details as the child’s father on her birth records and thus agreed that the mother could remove the child from Australia. By consent Le Poer Trench J made the following orders:
1.That the child […] born […] March 2007 (“the child”) be forthwith removed from the Airport Watch List.
2.That the mother be granted leave to remove the child from the Commonwealth of Australia upon the following terms:
2.1the mother shall travel together with the child as directly as feasible to the State of New York by way of Los Angeles, such travel to be on a Qantas flight departing Sydney International Airport on or before 23 July 2007.
3.The mother shall give the father 24 hours prior notice or provide notice as soon as a flight is booked if less than 24 hours, including flight number, date of departure and time of departure, in writing by email.
4.That the mother forward a copy of these Orders to the Australian Federal Police.
At 9.00 am on 20 July 2007 the mother’s then solicitors, Watts McCray, wrote to the father’s solicitor.[3] This letter responds to the father’s solicitor’s telephone inquiry the day before. In this letter the mother’s solicitor says: “In the circumstances, our client notes that she has done all things necessary to comply with the orders,” that is, that she has done everything necessary to ensure the father is registered as the child’s father. The letter having been sent, the mother telephoned the Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages. The mother again informed them that she did not wish the father to be added to the child’s birth certificate and that she signed the statutory declaration under duress. The duress being compliance with an order and her desire to return to the United States.
[3] Bundle 348
When the father’s solicitor attempted to register the change to the child’s birth registration documents, a registry officer informed her that because the Registrar had conflicting information, prior to registration DNA parentage testing evidence was required.
The father visited the child at her maternal grandparent’s home on 20 July 2007. He has not seen her since.
Accompanied by the mother’s mother, on Sunday 22 July 2007 the mother and the child flew to New York and returned to her rented apartment. The mother and the child both travelled on return tickets. Their tickets were valid for return New York to Sydney flights on or before 19 December 2007.
Because the mother failed to return from maternity leave by the appointed date her New York company terminated her employment. Written notification of her termination was provided by its Human Resources Manager on 31 July 2007.[4] The effect of this letter is that unless the mother obtained a new visa or secured approved alternate employment, she was required to leave the United States by 10 August 2007. Upon receipt of this letter the mother repeatedly attempted to speak with her employers and persuade the company to reinstate her. Unable to do so, she met with their representatives and negotiated a severance package.
[4] Exhibit “J”
Within one week of returning to her New York apartment, the mother’s landlord gave her oral notice to quit. When she failed to immediately depart she received a barrage of voicemail, email and written notices to quit. On 3 August 2007, the mother received formal written notice to vacate.[5] The effect of this notice is that unless the mother vacated the apartment by 30 September 2007, the landlord intended commencing proceedings to take possession.
[5]Bundle 300
Having been unable to persuade the Registry of Births Deaths and Marriages to change the child’s birth registration on 2 August 2007 the father filed an Amended Application for Final Orders[6] in which he applied for parentage orders. The effect of this is that the father abandoned his application for parenting orders in favour of parentage orders. The orders sought are set out below.
[6] Exhibit “F”
1.That the applicant father, [Mr Goldstein] is the father of the child.
2.That the Registrar of the New South Wales Registry of Births, Deaths & Marriages include the registrable information about the father of the child in the Register.
3.In the alternative to paragraph 2, that the respondent mother, the applicant father and the child be directed to submit to a parentage testing procedure with Genetic Technology in accordance with the Act and Regulations.
4.Such further and other orders as may be necessary to enable the parentage testing procedure to be carried out effectively and reliably.
5.That the respondent mother pay the costs incurred in relation to:
5.1the carrying out of the parentage testing procedure;
5.2compliance with orders made by this Court in relation to the parentage testing procedure;
5.3the preparation of reports in relation to the information obtained as a result of the carrying out of the parenting testing procedure.
6.That the respondent mother pay the applicant father’s costs of and incidental to this application.
On 13 August 2007, the mother filed a Response[7] in the Family Court at Sydney in which she sought the following orders:
1.That the application for final orders and the amended application for final orders filed on 2 August 2007 be dismissed.
[7] Exhibit “G”
On 14 August 2007, the Family Court at Sydney proceedings were adjourned to 18 September 2007. Those proceedings are now adjourned awaiting completion of these proceedings.
On 16 August 2007, the father returned to New York. Upon his return, the father immediately requested that the mother facilitate his unsupervised visits with the child. The mother thought the suggested duration was age inappropriate and that the child would need someone whom she knew well present in order to be comfortable. Thus she refused his requests, suggesting in the alternative shorter visits in her presence. Attached to the affidavits are numerous emails exchanges during this period with suggestions for mediations and offers and counter offers for visits with the child. Mediation did not occur and there was a stalemate concerning the father’s visits with the child which thus failed to resume. Nowhere in his emails does the father reveal that he had filed parenting applications in New York.

The mother says that shortly prior to her departure from New York she and the child stayed for a few days with friends in New Jersey before leaving from Newark for Israel.
On 31 August 2007, the father filed two petitions in the Family Court of the State of New York. One is a Paternity Petition. The petition identifies this as a proceeding reliant upon s 522 and s 523 of the Family Court Act and s 111-G of SSL. SSL refers to Social Security Law which is an Act relating to social services constituting chapter 55 of the New York Consolidated Laws. Its relevance appears to arise from the child support consequences of a filiation order and entitlement to social services support. In this application the father asserts that he is the child’s father and claims a filiation order based upon the parties’ sexual relationship during the relevant conception period, that the mother was unmarried at the time of the child’s birth and his acknowledgment of paternity in writing and by furnishing support. At the same time, the father filed a “Modification of Another Court Order” concerning custody and visitation.[8] This document identifies that the proceedings are commenced under Domestic Relations Law Article 5-A. The father alleges that he is the child’s father and is seeking an order for custody and visitation. He claims jurisdiction pursuant to DRL s 76(1) of the reliant upon the following grounds:
The child and the child’s parents or the child and at least one parent or a person acting as a parent, have a significant connection with this State other than mere physical presence; and substantial evidence is available in this State concerning the child’s care, protection, training and personal relationships; and a court of the home state of the child has declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that this State is the more appropriate forum under Domestic Relations Law s 76-F or s 76-G because the Family Court of Australia has specifically referred jurisdiction to New York (see order, attached).
OR
All courts having jurisdiction under paragraphs (a) and (b) have declined or should decline to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that a court of this State is the more appropriate forum to determine the custody of the child under Domestic Relations Law s 76-F or s 76-G.
[8]Bundle 389
Reference to subparagraph (a) is reference to home state jurisdiction. This relates to New York being the child’s home state at the commencement of filing of the petition, or being the home state within six months before filing and although the child is absent, a parent or person acting as a parent lives in New York. At clause 8b the father says: “The father of the child who is the subject of this proceeding has not been legally established”. At clause 14 he says: “The custody or visitation of the child has been determined or agreed upon in the following instruments: Custody order of Australia dated 4 July 2007”. At clause 15 he asserts: “Custody reliant upon the order of the Family Court of 4 July 2007”. This is the order which Mr Kaufman erroneously informed the Family Court of the State of New York is an “approved paternity agreement.” Neither application claims urgent orders, orders for substituted service or ex parte relief.
On 6 September 2007, a process server attended the mother’s New York company and unsuccessfully attempted personal service of the two petitions. Another attempt at personal service was made on 7 September 2007 at the mother’s New York apartment. The process server waited outside for one and a half hours before asking the concierge to contact her. Apparently the call was unanswered. On 10 September 2007, the same process server attended the mother’s apartment. The process server was allowed to enter the building and knocked on the mother’s apartment door. No one answered and service was not effected. The effect of this is that when the mother removed the child from New York, the father’s paternity and custody petitions had not been served.
On 15 September 2007, using their Australian passports, the mother and the child left New York for Israel. The mother’s mother remained in New York. Whilst in Israel the mother obtained an Israeli passport.
On 17 September 2007, the Family Court of the State of New York ordered the mother to produce the child to the Court the following day. Plainly the court understood that the child and her mother were still in the United States. By the time this order was made the mother and the child had joined the mother’s father in Israel.
On 18 September 2007, the Family Court of the State of New York again ordered the mother to produce the child to the court and surrender the child’s passport. The mother and the father were restrained from removing the child from New York City. It also made an order for substituted service, described as a “nail and mail” order, and adjourned the proceedings to 3 October 2007.
Acting on the mother’s behalf, on 20 September 2007 Watts McCray wrote to the Registry of Births Deaths and Marriages. It appears that there had been three way correspondence between the Registry, the father’s and the mother’s Australian lawyers. In this letter, pursuant to s 18(c) of the Births Deaths & Marriages Registration Act 1995 (NSW), Watts McCray challenged the correctness of the proposed alteration to the child’s birth records. By way of final response, on 28 September 2007 the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages informed the parties that until it received a DNA report in accordance with the Family Law Act or a court orders the inclusion of the father’s details on the child’s birth registration, his details will not be included.
Mr K, an employee of K Service Inc swore an affidavit in the New York paternity proceedings claiming that he served the mother with the paternity documents on 25 September 2007. He deposes to having spoken to the concierge who:
Called her apartment and told her that a process server was in the lobby to serve her legal papers. After a lengthy conversation [the mother] refused to accept service. She would not accept the documents in hand upstairs as she said she would not open the door to me: she would not come down to the lobby to accept the documents. He allowed me access to the building. I went up to that apartment and posted that document on the door. That on 26^th day of September 2007 deponent ([Mr K]) served another copy of the foregoing upon the respondent by enclosing a true copy thereof in a securely sealed and post paid wrapper with the words ‘personal and confidential’ written on the same etc.
Whomever Mr K believes the concierge spoke to, it was not the mother. There is no doubt that the mother had left the United States and was, at the time Mr K claims personal service upon her, already in Israel. The effect of this is that even if this service is deemed sufficient compliance with the order for substituted service made on 18 September 2007, the paternity petition alone was served. The modification of court order petition was not served. Nothing was served before the mother removed the child.
By letter dated 25 September 2007, the mother’s New York company informed the father’s New York attorney that: “...[the mother], while an employee of [the company], is currently on leave and not working on client or [company] matters. She has not been in our offices recently and she is not expected in our offices in the near future. Apart from the address contained in the enclosed document, we have no further information concerning [the mother’s] possible present whereabouts except for the following last known telephone numbers…”. The terms of this letter are inconsistent with its termination notice previously mentioned.
On about 17 October 2007 the father discovered the mother had left New York for Israel with the child. The father immediately applied to the Tel-Aviv Family Court for ex parte orders restraining the mother from departing Israel with the child. On 22 October 2007, orders were made as sought, but too late to prevent the child’s departure for Australia the same day.
On 23 October 2007, the mother sent the father an email in which she informs him that the child is in Israel and that they are well. She is silent about her departure for Australia and it appears that the email is a reprehensible attempt to mislead the father about their daughter’s whereabouts.
On 24 October 2007, the child and the mother arrived in Australia where they have remained ever since.
On 1 November 2007, the father completed an application under the Abduction Convention seeking the child’s return. The following day, the United States Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs, as the United States Central Authority, requested that the Australian Central Authority take action pursuant to the Abduction Convention to secure the child’s prompt return to the United States. Australia, having accepted that the Abduction Convention applies, on 6 November 2007, via the New South Wales Department of Community Services commenced these proceedings. The Department of Community Services’ application was made returnable before this Court on 12 November 2007.
In the meantime, the father’s Paternity and Custody Petitions were again before the Family Court of the State of New York. Mr Kaufman explains that on 9 November 2007 “Judge McLeod found and approved the “paternity agreement” as stated on the record and transcript of the parties appearance before the Family Court of Australia on 4 July 2007 and issued the default custody order accordingly. The order is predicated upon the court finding “[the mother] having failed to appear before this Court to answer the petition after having being properly served.”[9] The effect of this is having established paternity and on the erroneous belief that the mother had been served, a custody order was made in favour of the father.
[9]Bundle 328
On 12 November 2007, the mother filed an Amended Response[10] in the Family Court at Sydney in which she sought the orders set out below:
1.That the child […] born […] March 2007 live with the mother.
2.That whilst the father resides overseas he spend time with [the child] as agreed to between the parties bearing in mind [the child’s] age. Such time may include a weekly telephone call or electronic communication in the form of “skype”.
3.That upon the father commencing residency in Sydney (if at all) the father to spend time with [the child] as agreed to between the parties or failing agreement at such times as is considered appropriate bearing in mind [the child’s] age.
4.That the mother have sole parental responsibility for making decisions on major long term issues relating to [the child].
5.That the mother will provide to the father the names, addresses and telephone numbers of all medical professional who may treat [the child] for any serious medical condition.
6.That without admission, each of the parties be and is hereby restrained from denigrating the other or the other’s partner or members of the other partner’s family or causing or permitting such denigration to or in the presence and/or hearing of [the child].
[10] Exhibit “H”
On 12 November 2007, the Department of Community Services appeared in this Court and obtained the following ex parte orders:
1.That orders are made in accordance with paragraphs (1), (4), (5), (6), (7) and (8) of the Application by the Director-General of the Department of Community Services filed on 6 November 2007 as set out hereunder:
(1)That until further order the respondent mother […] born […] 1967 and/or any other person be restrained from removing the child […] (female) born […] March 2007 from the Commonwealth of Australia until further order of this Court and that the Australia Federal Police give effect to this order.
…
(4)That until further order, the respondent mother […] born […] 1967 surrenders forthwith to the Registrar of the Family Court of Australia, all current passports and air tickets relating to herself and the said child […] (female) born […] March 2007.
(5)That until further order, the names of the respondent mother […] born […] 2007 and the child […] (female) born […] March 2007 be placed upon the P.A.S.S. alert system at all Australian international arrival and departure points as soon as possible.
(6)That the respondent mother […] born […] 1967 be served with sealed copies of the application and the annexures and of these orders no later than 16 November 2007 and that the application be returnable before this Court at 9.30 am on 26 November 2007.
(7)That sealed copies of this application and these orders be served upon the Commissioner, Australian Federal Police.
(8)That the parties are at liberty to apply herein on 24 hours notice.
2.That these proceedings are adjourned to the Judicial Registrar’s Duty List callover at 9.30 am on 26 November 2007.
It appears that the Department of Community Services feared that if she was given notice of its application, the mother may remove the child from Australia before orders preventing her doing so could be obtained.
On 26 November 2007, the matter again came before this court. Mr Twigg appeared for the mother. The Judicial Registrar made the following orders and directions:
1.Leave to approach the Listing Manager for a date before a judge for hearing an application under the Family Law (Child Abduction Convention) Regulations estimated hearing time 1 day.
2.The Court noted the parties have been advised the 14 January 2008 may be available and the Court requested that that date be allocated.
3.Any documents on which the mother seeks to rely are to be filed and served not later than 17 December 2007.
4.Any documents on which the Central Authority seeks to rely are to be filed and served not later than close of business on 7 January 2008.
5.It is noted in the event an earlier date becomes available the parties may be advised of a change of date to a date in December 2007.
The mother did not comply with directions that she file and serve her response and affidavits by 17 December 2007.
On 30 November 2007, the father’s paternity and custody petitions were again listed in the Family Court of the State of New York. The petitions were adjourned until 4 February 2008 pending the outcome of these Hague proceedings.
The proceedings came before a Judicial Registrar on 20 December 2007. That day the Judicial Registrar confirmed that the proceedings were listed for final hearing on 14 January 2008.
On 21 December 2007, the mother filed an urgent Application in a Case in these proceedings seeking that this hearing is vacated and the final hearing listed instead for 4 February 2008, or if that date is unavailable, at a date to be fixed.
On 24 December 2007, the mother filed a Response in the Hague proceedings. The mother disclosed that she challenged the Department of Community Service’s contention that the child was habitually resident in New York at the time of her removal and that the father had rights of custody.
On 31 December 2007, the mother filed an Amended Response to the Hague Application.
On 3 January 2008, the Court advised the mother and Department of Community Services that the mother’s adjournment application was listed for hearing before Le Poer Trench J at 2.30 pm on 10 January 2008.
On 10 January 2008, in these proceedings, Le Poer Trench J made the following orders and directions:
1.I grant leave to the Central Authority to file in Court today an affidavit sworn by [Ms P] on 8 January 2008.
2.I grant leave to the mother to file in Court today a copy of an affidavit sworn by Harold A Mayerson on 8 January 2008.
It is directed by the Court:
A.The solicitor for the mother is to provide the original of the affidavit filed pursuant to order 2 of today’s orders to the Court as soon as it becomes available.
3.The application of the mother filed 21 December 2007 be adjourned to Monday 14 January 2008 at 10.00 am to be heard before Justice Ryan together with the principal proceedings.

The hearing

At the commencement of the hearing, Mr Twigg appeared for the mother and Ms Hartstein as counsel for the Department of Community Services. As a preliminary issue, I considered the mother’s adjournment application. Her application was presented upon three bases, namely that:
1.Her counsel was unavailable.
2.That she required further time to file an affidavit in reply to the father’s affidavit served seven days earlier.
3.She required further time to obtain an affidavit from her New York attorney, Mr Mayerson, responding to Mr Kauffman’s affidavit served 11 January 2008.
The Department of Community Services opposed the mother’s adjournment application. Before I ruled on it I conferred with the resident case management judge as to the range of dates if I did not proceed with the hearing. I was informed that the next available date was 31 March 2008. Although at an earlier mention there had been a suggestion that 4 February 2008 may be available, in the interregnum, another hearing had been allocated and it was no longer available.
It is in the spirit of the Abduction Convention that these forum determinations are dealt with quickly. Article 1 of the Abduction Convention refers to the “prompt return of children” between contracting states. Under Article 11, it is incumbent upon the authorities to act expeditiously and an applicant has a right to request the reasons for the delay if the proceedings, including the court proceedings, have not been completed within six weeks. Relevantly, reg 15 provides:
(2)A Court must, so far as practicable, give to an application such priority as will ensure that the application is dealt with as quickly as a proper consideration of each matter relating to the application allows.
and
(4)If the application is made under reg 14 is not determined by a court within the period of 42 days commencing on the day in which the application is filed:
(a)the responsible Central Authority or Article 3 applicant who made the application may ask the Registrar of the court to state in writing the reasons for the application not having been determined within that period; and
(b)as soon as practicable after being asked, the Registrar must give the statement to the responsible Central Authority or Article 3 applicant.
The effect of these regulations is that as the initiating application was filed on 6 November 2007, prima facie this court is expected to bring the matter to conclusion by 18 December 2007. Police Commission of South Australia v Temple (No. 2) (1993) FLC 92-424. By listing the matter on 14 January 2008, the Court afforded the father an expeditious hearing without creating an over hasty hearing with insufficient time for the mother to prepare her case and for the matter to be heard properly. Although slightly outside the parameters anticipated by the Regulations, the trial directions made for this case were appropriate and consistent with the High Court’s guidance in De L v Director General of the Department of Community Services (1996) FLC 92-706. See also Director General Department of Family Youth & Community Care v Bennett (2000) FLC 93-011.
It is also necessary to consider the procedure commonly adopted in hearing Abduction Convention applications. In Gazi vGazi (1993) FLC 92-341 the Full Court held:
…. The primary purpose of the Convention, the relevant legislation and regulations is to provide a summary procedure for the resolution of the proceedings and, where appropriate, a speedy return to the country of their habitual residence of children who are wrongly removed or retained in another country in breach of rights of custody or access. See Convention, article 7 and 11, Family Law (Child Abduction Convention) Regulations, reg. (19) (1).
Accordingly, whilst there may be cases in which it is appropriate to allow cross examination of deponents of affidavits, such cases would be rare. The majority of proceedings for the return of children, pursuant to the Convention, should be dealt with in a summary manner and cross examination of deponents of affidavits would not be appropriate. See: Re E (A Minor) (Abduction) (1989) 1 FLR 135 at 142 per Balcombe LJ; P v P (Minors) (Child Abduction) 1992 1 FLR 155.

In DP v Central Authority; JLM v Director-General, NSW Department of Community Services (2001) 180 ALR 402. Gaudron, Gummow and Hayne JJ (in the majority) said:
…because what is to be established is a grave risk of exposure to future harm, it may well be true to say that a court will not be persuaded of that without some clear and compelling evidence.
And also:
That is not to say, however, that reg 16(3)(b) will find frequent application. It is well-nigh inevitable that a child, taken from one country to another without the agreement of one parent, will suffer disruption, uncertainty and anxiety. That disruption, uncertainty and anxiety will recur, and may well be magnified, by having to return to the country of habitual residence. Regulation 16(3)(b) and Art 13(b) of the Convention intend to refer to more than this kind of result when they speak of a grave risk to the child of exposure to physical or psychological harm on return.
The mother alleges that ordering the child’s return to the United States exposes the child to a grave risk of physical or psychological harm or otherwise places her in an intolerable situation. This is partly because she would be without employment, accommodation, health care and any obvious means of support. She highlights that since the child’s birth she has been solely responsible for the child’s care. The child is still breastfed and if they are separated this must be inevitably traumatic and psychologically damaging to the child. With this I agree. However, the Department of Community Services says that so as to ensure that the child returns to New York with her primary carer, it would arrange necessary visas for the child and the mother. It points out that there is no legal impediment which means that the child but not the mother could re-enter the United States. On the face of it, there is thus no risk that the child would be separated from her primary carer.
The Department of Community Services highlights that the mother’s name still appears on her New York company’s website and submits that she may well be able to easily obtain paid employment. This is far from clear and I proceed upon the basis that for the period during which the Family Court of the State of New York would need to decide the parenting issues she would be unemployed. The prospect is therefore that the mother and the child may reside in a women’s refuge or other form of temporary community accommodation. Whilst this may be uncomfortable I do not agree that the prospect of women’s refuge style accommodation is tantamount to an intolerable situation or involves the risk of a grave risk of harm. Although it is a lesser standard of living than the child and her mother enjoy, as it would be of comparatively limited duration such discomfort as may arise could not be elevated to “intolerable”.
The mother has assets in Australia which she could use towards her and the child’s necessary expenses if a return order was made.
The effect of these findings is that I am satisfied that if a return order is made the mother can accompany the child and that no issue of separation arises. Although the standard of living upon return may be less than ideal, it is not tantamount to exposing the child to a grave risk of harm or otherwise placing her in an intolerable situation.
As I am persuaded that the Abduction Convention does not apply and the defences are not made out it is unnecessary to consider whether in its discretion a return order should be made or any appropriate conditions for the child’s return.
The parties should appreciate that now that the forum issue is resolved this Court’s expectation is that they will focus upon the child’s best interests and cooperate with the Court’s attempts to promptly address their parentage and parenting issues.
For these reasons I make the order identified at the start of this judgment.

I certify that the preceding one hundred and seventy-nine (179) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Ryan

Associate:

Date: 7 March 2008

[2008] FamCA 182

7 March 2008

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Family Law

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Jurisdiction

Procedural Fairness

Expert Evidence

Standing

Consent