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

The Director-General, Department of Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services, acting as the Central Authority under the Family Law (Child Abduction Convention) Regulations 1986 (Cth), applied to the Family Court of Australia for orders concerning two children, R and E. The application was made on behalf of the children's father, Mr D, who was the requesting applicant, against the children's mother, Ms Wake, who was the respondent. The core dispute involved allegations that Ms Wake had wrongfully removed the children from New Zealand and retained them in Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether to grant interim ex parte injunctions to prevent the children's further removal from Australia and to secure their passports, pending a full hearing of the application for their return to New Zealand. The court was required to determine if a prima facie case had been established for wrongful removal and retention under the Regulations, justifying the immediate imposition of protective orders without the respondent mother's presence or participation.

Justice Kent, applying regulation 16(3) of the Family Law (Child Abduction Convention) Regulations 1986, found that the applicant had established a prima facie case that the mother's removal of the children from New Zealand and their subsequent retention were wrongful. This conclusion was based on the material before the court, including the circumstances of the mother's departure from New Zealand while the father was temporarily overseas. Given the prima facie case and the need to preserve the status quo, the court deemed it appropriate to grant the ex parte orders.

The court made several orders, including restraining the respondent mother from removing the children from Australia, restraining the children from leaving Australia, and placing their names on the All Ports Watch Alert System for two years. The court also ordered the mother to surrender all passports relating to herself and the children, and restrained her from changing the children's usual day-to-day residence. The application was adjourned for further mention.