Goh and Trinh (No. 2)

In the matter of *Goh and Trinh (No. 2)*, Judicial Registrar Johnston of the Family Court of Australia made orders concerning property settlement and parenting arrangements. The dispute involved the transfer of a property located at "C" in New South Wales from the Wife to the Husband, the discharge of a mortgage on that property, and the Husband indemnifying the Wife against any related debts. The orders also addressed the division of other assets, with each party retaining sole ownership of property, chattels, bank accounts, shares, and motor vehicles in their respective names.

The court was required to determine the specific terms of the property settlement, including the timeline for the property transfer and mortgage discharge, and to establish the mechanism for enforcing these orders should a party fail to comply. In relation to parenting, the court was tasked with determining the child's residence, parental responsibility, and the conditions under which the child could spend time with the Mother. Crucially, the court also had to address the circumstances of the child's prior removal from Australia by the Mother without the Father's consent or a court order.

Judicial Registrar Johnston applied principles under the *Family Law Act 1975*, including Section 106A, to empower the Registrar to execute documents on behalf of a non-compliant party. The court ordered the Wife to return the child to Australia forthwith and granted the Husband sole parental responsibility and the right for the child to live with him. The Wife was to facilitate the child's time with the Mother as agreed. The court also issued an order restraining the removal of the child from Australia and requested the Australian Federal Police to place the child on the Airport Watchlist. Furthermore, the court declared that the Husband had sole parental responsibility, that no Australian court had granted the Mother sole parental responsibility or permission to remove the child without the Father's consent, and that the child had been taken from Australia by the Mother without consent or court order.

The orders were to commence operation 42 days after service by pre-paid overseas post. The Wife was granted leave to relist the proceedings at her cost risk within that 42-day period, and the Husband's application for costs was dismissed.