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

[2012] FamCA 973

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

DIRECTOR-GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITIES, CHILD SAFETY AND DISABILITY SERVICES & PARSON [2012] FamCA 973

FAMILY COURT – CHILD ABDUCTION - Hague Convention - Where the Respondent agrees to the return of the subject child - Where the Court is satisfied that the relevant regulations have been satisfied so as to justify the making of a return Order

Care of Children Act 2004 (NZ)
Family Law (Child Abduction Convention) Regulations 1986 (Cth)

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

RESPONDENT: Ms Parson

FILE NUMBER: BRC 10184 of 2012

DATE DELIVERED: 23 November 2012

PLACE DELIVERED: Brisbane

PLACE HEARD: Brisbane

JUDGMENT OF: Kent J

HEARING DATE: 23 November 2012

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Crown Law

Orders

1. That the child, B born … October 2009 be returned to the country of New Zealand; and for the purposes of giving effect to this order:

(a)       That the said child B born … October 2009 leave the Commonwealth of Australia on or before 23 November 2012;

(b)       That the said child B born … October 2009 arrive in New Zealand on or before 24 November 2012;

1. That there be liberty to apply.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Director-General, Department of Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services & Parson has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT BRISBANE

FILE NUMBER: BRC 10184 of 2012

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

Applicant

And

Ms Parson

Respondent

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. By Form 2 application filed on 12 November 2012, the Director-General, Department of Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services, in her capacity as the State Central Authority pursuant to the Family Law (Child Abduction Convention) Regulations 1986 (Cth), applied for interim and final orders so far as final orders are concerned in relation to the child, B, born in October 2009 (“the child”), being returned to the country of New Zealand.

2. The Respondent to the application is Ms Parson, who appears representing herself this morning and who tells me she understands the proposed consent orders and indeed, it has been recorded in Court that she proposes to return to New Zealand later today.

3. Obviously, the Respondent does not contest the application given her consent to the orders being made. Relevantly, I am satisfied on the uncontested material filed in support of the Application that the child was habitually resident in New Zealand, a Convention country, immediately prior to her retention and that on the facts and particulars contained in the Form 2 application, she was wrongfully retained from New Zealand in Australia. I am satisfied that the requesting person, namely the father, Mr C, had rights of custody as defined by the Care of Children Act 2004 (NZ) and that retention was in breach of those rights.

4. In all the circumstances, I am satisfied with the orders to be made and I now make orders in terms of those to which both parties have consented, now initialled by me and placed with the file.

I certify that the preceding four (4) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Kent delivered on 23 November 2012.

Associate:

Date:  23 November 2012