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

The Director-General, Department of Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services, as the applicant, sought final orders for the return of a child to New Zealand under the Family Law (Child Abduction Convention) Regulations 1986 (Cth). The application was initiated by the child's mother, Ms Rameka, who resided in New Zealand and held rights of custody. The respondent was the child's father, Mr Rameka, who had brought the child to Australia for a holiday and subsequently retained her, contrary to the mother's wishes and consent. The child, born in March 1998, was habitually resident in New Zealand and the application was filed within the time prescribed by the Regulations.

The court was required to determine whether the elements necessary for making a return order under the Regulations were established. Specifically, the court needed to be satisfied that the mother had rights of custody under New Zealand law, that these rights were being exercised or would have been exercised but for the child's retention in Australia, and that the child was habitually resident in New Zealand. The court also considered the father's position regarding the application, noting that he had initially not contested the material filed in support of the application and ultimately consented to the orders sought.

Justice Kent found that the applicant had satisfied all the requirements for a return order. The court was satisfied, based on the evidence presented, that the mother possessed rights of custody under New Zealand law and that the retention of the child in Australia on 5 January 2013 constituted a breach of those rights. Furthermore, the court was satisfied that the child was habitually resident in New Zealand and that the application had been filed within the stipulated timeframe. Given the father's consent to the orders and the satisfaction of all regulatory requirements, the court proceeded to make the orders.

By consent, the court ordered the child's return to New Zealand on or before 22 June 2013. The order included injunctions restraining the father from removing the child from Australia or changing her residence pending her return. It also mandated the retention of the father and child's names on the All Ports Watch Alert System, with provisions for their removal upon confirmation of travel arrangements. The court further ordered that the father and mother share the expenses associated with the child's return, with the father liable for reimbursement if he failed to pay his share. Previous orders made on 25 March 2013 were discharged, and all other applications were dismissed.