Director-General, Department of Family and Community Services; and Raddison

The Director-General of the Department of Family and Community Services, acting on behalf of the South African Government, applied to the Family Court of Australia for orders to ensure the children, K and T, had access to their father, Mr A. The respondent, Ms Raddison, opposed the application. The matter had a complex procedural history, including a previous dismissal of the application and a subsequent Full Court order for a rehearing.

The court was required to determine whether to grant the father access to his children, K and T, under the provisions of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, as implemented by the Family Law (Child Abduction Convention) Regulations 1986 (Cth). This involved considering the children's current attitudes towards their father, given that there had been no contact between them since 2007, following a prior unsuccessful application for their return to South Africa.

The court considered evidence from two family reports, the most recent of which indicated a significant shift in the children's views. The earlier report from 2010 suggested both children wished to see their father, but the 2012 report detailed their adamant opposition to any contact. The court noted that the children, particularly K, expressed distress and a desire to end the ongoing family conflict. The court also considered the father's previous contact with the children in 2007, which had initially appeared positive, but acknowledged the passage of time and the children's current strong feelings. The court ultimately found that, given the children's expressed views and emotional states, it was not appropriate to order face-to-face access at that time.

The court made orders that unless the respondent agreed in writing to facilitate face-to-face access, there was to be no such access. The father was permitted to provide contact details for himself, which the Director-General was to pass to the respondent for the children's access. The respondent was to inform the children of the orders and facilitate communication if requested. The respondent was also ordered to provide an address for the father to send cards and presents on birthdays and holidays, and was prohibited from making disparaging comments about the father in the children's presence. The application for access was otherwise dismissed.