Department of Health and Human Services and Singhe

[2017] FamCA 182

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES & SINGHE [2017] FamCA 182

FAMILY LAW – INJUNCTION

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Department of Health and Human Services

RESPONDENT: Ms Singhe

FILE NUMBER: MLC 2158 of 2017

DATE DELIVERED: 16 March 2017

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Cronin J

HEARING DATE: 16 March 2017

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Ms Gorges, State Central Authority

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Stanley

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Neill Ogge Lawyers

Orders

1. That paragraph 2 of the orders made on 9 March 2017 is amended to include D.

2. That the application filed 6 March 2017 is adjourned to 9.00am on 28 April 2017 for mention.

3. That a family consultant is appointed to prepare a report directed to Reg 16(3)(c) of the Family Law (Child Abduction Convention) Regulations 1986 in respect of the following matters:

   (i)the child objects to being returned;

   (ii)the child’s objection shows a strength of feeling beyond the mere expression of a preference or of ordinary wishes;

   (iii)the child has attained an age, and a degree of maturity, at which it is appropriate to take account of his or her views.

4. That for the purposes of the said report, the mother make the children available and to the extent that the family consultant considers it appropriate, the father of the children participate.

5. That the said report commence not before 3 April 2017 and be released to all parties by 27 April 2017.

6. That pursuant to Section 68L(2) the Family Law Act 1975 the children B born … 2005 and C born … 2007 separately represented AND IT IS REQUESTED that Victoria Legal Aid arrange such separate representation.

7. That forthwith upon appointment by the said Victoria Legal Aid or otherwise the Independent Children’s Lawyer file a Notice of Address for Service.

8. That within 48 hours of notification of such appointment the parties, and if represented the solicitors for the respective parties, provide to the Independent Children’s Lawyer copies of all relevant documents relied upon.

9. That the respondent file and serve a response by 4.00pm on 30 April 2017.

10. That a copy of this order be made available by the solicitors for the mother to the father.

11. That the reasons for judgment this day be transcribed.

12. That the father have liberty to apply to seek to set aside paragraph 1 of these orders.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Department of Health and Human Services & Singhe has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 2158  of 2017

Department of Health and Human Services

Applicant

And

Ms Singhe

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is the second return date of the application by the State Central Authority under the Family Law (Child Abduction Convention) Regulations 1986. On 9 March 2017 I made ex parte orders, the relevant one being that the mother of the two children named in that order was restrained from removing them from the Commonwealth of Australia. Today being the first return date thereafter, the mother has attended by solicitor and counsel; and it seems common ground that at least the father is in Australia, and has been described by the State Central Authority as “active”.

2. I am told, and there is no evidence at this stage of this, that the father approached the mother’s home around 7 February such as to activate the police to commence intervention order proceedings under State legislation; and there is an interim order now which has a return date of 5 April 2017.  Having regard to the fact that on the previous occasion I limited the injunctive order to the mother only, it is conceivable that the father might endeavour to take the law into his own hands and remove the children; and on that basis I think it is appropriate that until such time as this matter is properly heard and determined, he also be restrained by injunction from removing the children from Australia.

   ORDERS DELIVERED

3. Those formal orders will be issued during the morning today.

I certify that the preceding three (3) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cronin delivered on 16 March 2017.

Associate: 

Date:  24 March 2017