Director-General, Department of Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services and Kehakeha

The Director-General, Department of Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services, acting as the State Central Authority under the Family Law (Child Abduction Convention) Regulations 1986, applied to the Family Court of Australia for final orders concerning access to a child, C, born in 1999. The application was made on behalf of the child's father, Mr D, a New Zealand national, who held access rights pursuant to New Zealand Family Court orders. The respondent to the application was Ms Kehakeha, the child's mother, also a New Zealand national, believed to be residing in the Gold Coast region. The primary dispute, at this stage, concerned the inability to serve the application on the respondent mother.

The court was required to determine whether to grant a location order, pursuant to section 67M of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), to enable the applicant to locate the respondent mother for the purpose of service. Additionally, the court considered whether to grant leave for the Registrar to disclose information obtained from the Director-General of the Department of Education, Training and Employment, pursuant to section 67P(1)(d) of the Act, to specified parties for the purpose of service. The court also considered the abridgement of necessary times in respect of the application.

Justice Kent was satisfied, based on the affidavit evidence presented, that attempts had been made to serve the respondent mother. The court was also satisfied that the relevant department was aware of the application and did not oppose the orders sought. Consequently, the court abridged the necessary times and made orders in terms of the draft submitted by the applicant. These orders included directing the Director-General of the Department of Education, Training and Employment to provide information regarding the whereabouts of the respondent mother and child to the Registrar, and granting leave for the Registrar to disclose this information to the applicant's solicitor, a process server, and relevant Central Authorities. The court also noted a liberty to apply provision within the orders.