Ganem and Ganem (No. 3)

The Family Court of Australia heard an urgent application brought by Ms Ganem (the mother) against Mr Ganem (the father) concerning their child, K. The dispute arose after the father unilaterally removed the child from the mother's care, despite the child having lived with the mother since the parents' separation in May 2010 and having had no contact with the father for the preceding fifteen months. The mother alleged family violence and sought a recovery order for the child.

The court was required to determine what interim parenting arrangements were appropriate given the child's recent removal by the father and the absence of existing interim orders. Specifically, the court needed to decide whether to issue a recovery order, the terms of any interim parenting orders, and the extent of any contact the father should have with the child pending a further hearing. The court also considered the father's allegations of child abuse and the child's alleged distress.

Justice Aldridge reasoned that the father's unilateral actions in removing the child were highly undesirable and detrimental to the child's welfare, particularly given the prolonged absence of contact and the child's established primary care arrangement with the mother. The court determined that the immediate priority was to restore the status quo and ensure the child's safe return to the mother. Consequently, a recovery order was made, directing the child's return to the mother by 7:00 pm that evening, with the order not to be executed by law enforcement until that time to facilitate a non-forcible return. Interim orders were made for the child to live with the mother, with limited telephone contact for the father, and restraining orders were imposed on both parties to prevent direct or indirect contact with each other, except as specified. The matter was adjourned for a further interim parenting hearing.