Jamil & Ghannam
[2022] FedCFamC1F 807
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
(DIVISION 1)
Jamil & Ghannam [2022] FedCFamC1F 807
File number(s): SYC 5365 of 2021 Judgment of: ALTOBELLI J Date of judgment: 29 August 2022 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Application by the father for international travel with the child to a non-signatory to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction – Where the application is opposed by the mother and the Independent Children’s Lawyer – Where the father has limited ties with Australia and has previously attempted to travel with the child without the mother’s consent – Application dismissed. Legislation: Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction Cases cited: Kuebler and Kuebler (1978) FLC 90-434; [1978] FamCA 26
Line v Line (1997) FLC 92-729; [1996] FamCA 145
Division: Division 1 First Instance Number of paragraphs: 10 Date of hearing: 29 August 2022 Place: Sydney (via videoconference) Solicitor for the Applicant: Ms Antonopoulos, One Legal Group The Respondent: Litigant in person Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Ms Rebehy Solicitor for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Legal Aid NSW ORDERS
SYC 5365 of 2021 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN: MR GHANNAM
Applicant
AND: MS JAMIL
Respondent
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER
order made by:
ALTOBELLI J
DATE OF ORDER:
29 AUGUST 2022
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The Father’s Application in a Proceeding filed 24 August 2022 is dismissed.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Jamil & Ghannam has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Revised from the Transcript)ALTOBELLI J:
INTRODUCTION
This application comes before me on short notice and relates to a child, X (“the child”), who is four years and ten months old. She lives with Mr Ghannam (“the father”) and is currently not spending time with Ms Jamil (“the mother”). The father filed an Application in a Proceeding on 24 August 2022 seeking that he be permitted to travel with the child to Country B. The father’s application is supported by his affidavit filed 24 August 2022 and an earlier affidavit he filed on 21 October 2021, both of which I have had regard to. The mother represents herself in this application. She has had the assistance of an interpreter and she has communicated to the Court her opposition to the father’s application to travel with the child to Country B. The child is represented by an experienced Independent Children's Lawyer who has briefed an equally experienced family law counsel. The Independent Children's Lawyer opposes the father’s application to travel with the child to Country B.
BACKGROUND
The Independent Children’s Lawyer’s case outline filed 26 August 2022 contains a useful chronology that is reproduced at Schedule A to these ex tempore reasons. The utility of the chronology is that it provides a comprehensive summary, derived from both the mother and father’s material, of the various allegations, competing contentions and events that have occurred during the course of this matter. There is no doubt that there is some complexity to this matter.
The child has not spent time with the mother for over two years and the reason for that is by no means clear to the Court and highly contentious between the parties. In essence, the father’s case is that the mother has not spent time with the child because she has not tried to. The mother’s case is, in essence, that she has neither spent time nor communicated with the child because she has been obstructed and prohibited from doing so. The bottom line is that the child has not spent time or communicated with the mother for an unacceptable length of time, from the perspective of this Court. This is significant when assessing the risk to the child of being allowed to travel with the father to Country B.
DISCUSSION
In the event that the child is allowed to travel with the father to Country B but does not return, for all practical purposes these proceedings are over. In such circumstances where Country B is not a party to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (“the Hague Convention”) and where all that exists are agreements between the respective governments that could be described generously as being facilitative rather than mandatory, there would be no assurance that if the father decides, notwithstanding his representations to the Court, that he will not return from Country B, it would be almost impossible for the child to be returned within a reasonable timeframe. In those circumstances, all the other facts and assertions in this case need to be considered.
While submissions were not made about the applicable law, it is worthwhile to discuss the authorities. This Court has looked at the issue of risks to children associated with international travel on several occasions. Some of the oldest authorities remain the most convincing authorities, for example, the Court’s decision in Line v Line (1997) FLC 92-729 (“Line”) and Kuebler and Kuebler (1978) FLC 90-434 (“Kuebler”). Both articulate the considerations a Court needs to consider in assessing the risk to a child of non-return if travel is permitted.
For example, in Line, the Court takes into account the existence or otherwise of continuing ties between the departing parent and Australia, such as the ownership of real estate, the existence of business interests or the residence of close family or friends in Australia. With respect to the father, the existence of continuing ties is not a strength in his case. At best, the ties are minimal. While it is true that he operates a business in Australia and that the child is enrolled to attend school in Australia, all the other indicators are hardly indicative of a strong continuing tie between the father and Australia, despite his representations of his intention.
There is ongoing litigation that is highly contested, certainly from the mother’s perspective. I acknowledge the submission made on behalf of the father that the mother’s engagement in the proceedings has been less than consistent. Against that is the fact that the mother is representing herself and alleges in her affidavit that this was a violent relationship. All of these factors need to be taken into account in assessing the possible reasons why she has not participated in the proceedings. There is a real issue in this case about who is right about why she has not been able to spend time and communicate with the child.
In Kuebler, there are a number of other considerations discussed. The length of the proposed international stay is a short one. The bona fides of the application is put in question, certainly by the mother, and concerns are raised by the Independent Children's Lawyer. If I allow the travel, I accept that the impact on the child is no greater in terms of not spending time or communicating with the mother than it is now, because she is simply not spending time with the mother. In evidence is the advice from the Australian Government’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s website titled Smart Traveller, which says in general terms to reconsider travel, which I accept. The threats to the welfare of the child by the circumstances of the proposed environment is not so much about travel to Country B as the risk of not returning from Country B, in circumstances where the father’s ties to Australia are limited.
The next consideration is the degree of satisfaction in which the Court based its assessment of the parties that a promise of the child’s return to the jurisdiction would be honoured. This consideration causes the Court some concern. The evidence is quite clear that as recently as mid-2022, the father sought to travel to Country B with the child without advising the mother, possibly the Independent Children's Lawyer, and did so after he had been involved in this litigation for over a year and was duly represented as well. That raises real issues in this Court’s mind about the bona fides of a promise to return to the jurisdiction with the child.
When these considerations are taken into account, and particularly the absence of access to the Hague Convention, there is an unacceptable risk to the child of travelling with the father to Country B. Accordingly, the father’s application is dismissed.
I certify that the preceding ten (10) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the ex tempore Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Altobelli delivered on 29 August 2022. Associate:
Dated: 29 August 2022
SCHEDULE A
Date Event Source 1979 Date of birth of the Respondent Father, Mr Ghannam (“Mr Ghannam”). Aff Ms Jamil,
24.07.2021, p. 4.
Aff Mr Ghannam,
21.10.2021, p. 2.
Aff Mr Ghannam,
24.08.2022, p. 2.1986 Date of birth of the Applicant Mother, Ms Jamil (“Ms Jamil”). Aff Ms Jamil,
24.07.2021, p. 1.
Aff Mr Ghannam,
21.10.2021, p. 3.
Aff Mr Ghannam,
24.08.2022, p. 3.2009 The mother understands that the father commenced holding a Permanent Residency in Australia after marrying an Australian citizen, Ms C (the father divorced Ms C in 2013). Aff Ms Jamil, 24.07.2021, p. 14 and 15. Late 2016 Parties married in City D, Country B through a religious marriage ceremony. Aff Ms Jamil, 24.07.2021, p. 5 and 10.
Aff Mr Ghannam, 21.10.2021, p. 4. Aff Mr Ghannam, 24.08.2022, p. 4.Mid-2017 The mother states that the father decided that she and the child should apply for a ‘Subclass 309 Partner (Provisional) Visa’. The intention was for the parties and the child to travel to Australia and live their indefinitely.
The father denies the above. The father states that the parties did not agree to relocate to Australia. The father states that the parties travelled to Australia for a period of one month to satisfy the requirements of the visa obtained for the mother
and the child.
Note: The Affidavit of the Applicant Mother states the above event occurred in or around mid-2018. This appears to be inconsistent with the remainder of the mother’s Affidavit given
that the Applicant Mother states that she was granted the ‘Subclass 309 Partner (Provisional) Visa’ in late 2017 and the Applicant Mother (as well as Respondent Father and child relocated to Australia in early 2018).Aff Ms Jamil,
24.07.2021, p. 16.
Aff Mr Ghannam, 21.10.2021, p. 65.2017 Date of birth of child, X (“X”). Aff Ms Jamil,
24.07.2021, p. 6.
Aff Mr Ghannam,
21.10.2021, p. 6,
Aff Mr Ghannam,
24.08.2022, p. 6.Late 2017 The mother and child were granted a Visa (the mother’s evidence states she received a ‘Subclass 309 Partner (Provisional) Visa.’ Aff Ms Jamil, 24.07.2021, p. 18. Early 2018 The parties and child arrived in Australia. The parties commenced living with the father’s sister, Ms E (“Ms E”) at F Street, Suburb G. Aff Ms Jamil, 24.07.2021, p. 20.
Aff Mr Ghannam, 21.10.2021, p. 21.Early 2018 The mother states that the father informed her that he no longer wished to stay in Australia and that he wanted to return to Country B. The mother said to him “I didn’t initially want to come here. It was your idea. You convinced me to come and I
reluctantly agreed. We sold our belongings and left everything behind to come here. And now you just want to suddenly leave?” The mother states that the father decided that the parties and child must return to Country B and told her that his decision was not subject to negotiation.Aff Ms Jamil,
24.07.2021, p. 22 and 23.Early 2018 The parties and child returned to City D, Country B. The parties commenced living at the paternal grandmother’s home (also located in City D, Country B).
On one occasion, the mother noticed the father bring to the paternal grandmother’s home a number of male and female individuals who she did not know and not seen before. The mother states that the father signalled her to enter the bedroom, remain there and not involve herself with these individuals. The mother states that she observed the female individuals wore traditional cultural clothing and the male individuals were armed with firearms. The mother states that this occurred on numerous occasions between early 2018 and early 2019.
The father states he discovered contraception pills in the mother’s handbag. The father and the mother had the following conversation:
Father: “Why are you taking these pills?”
Mother: “I am taking them because I want us to enjoy our marriage and time as a couple before we have a child.”
Father: “Ok, but why did you not tell me. You did not have to lie. We do not need to have a child right away. I just want you to share things with me and stop taking them.”
Mother: “I will stop taking them.”Aff Ms Jamil, 24.07.2021, p. 13, 23, 24 and 27 to 30.
Aff Mr Ghannam, 21.10.2021, p. 13 and 21.Early 2018 The father states he found an empty bottle of medicine which was hidden in a cosmetic bag. The father contacted a friend (who was also a pharmacist) and ascertained it was a sleeping liquid for children. The father and the mother had the following conversation:
Father: “I found this medicine bottle. You have been giving [X] a sleeping liquid.”
Mother: “I don’t know what that is. I have not been giving it to [X].”
Father: “I found it hidden in the cosmetic bag. This is why [X] is always asleep. Have you been giving it to [X]?”
Mother: “Yes, I have been.”
Father: “The bottle is almost empty. How long have you been giving this to her. This is not good for a baby. Do you not care about her and her health. Do you not know the health problems this can cause for [X]. You need to stop giving [X] this right away.”
Mother: “I will stop giving it to her.”Aff Mr Ghannam, 21.10.2021, p. 23. Late 2018 The mother alleges that an incident arose at the home of the paternal grandmother. The mother states that the father said “I want you to start dressing in a […] similar to the one that the women who visit our home wear.” The mother said “I will not dress that way. I do no want to wear a […]. I do not want to wear a […].” The mother alleges that the father then dragged the mother to the bedroom and proceeded to slap and punch (with a closed fist) the mother on the face and body. The mother states that the father would not permit her to leave the bedroom and/or seek medical or professional help.
The mother states that the child was present during this incident. The mother states that the child was frightened and began to cry.
The mother alleges that a further incident occurred where the father said to her “I want you to start firearms training with these women who visit our house. You will be paid for your training.” The mother said “I do not want to be associated with these people. I do not want to receive such training.” The mother alleges that the father then dragged the mother by her arm to the bedroom and punched her to the body and slapped her in her face. The mother states she was not permitted to leave the house following the incident.
The mother alleges that on numerous occasions (from late 2018 until early 2019), the father threatened to pour acid on her face. On one occasion, the father pointed at a bottle of cleaning acid and said to the mother “I’m going to pour that bottle of acid onto your face soon enough. That way your face will be scarred for the rest of your life.”
The father denies the above allegations.Aff Ms Jamil,
24.07.2021, p. 31 to
37.
Aff Mr Ghannam,
21.10.2021, p. 67, 68
and Annexure B.Mid-January 2019 The mother states that the parties separated during this time.
The mother states she packed her belongings and child’s belongings and leave with the child. The mother and child went to the maternal grandparents’ home. The mother did not notify the father as she states she was fearful of the father.
The mother states that the father contacted her on mobile phone. The mother said to him “I am at my parents’ home now with [X]. I will not be returning to your household as I can no longer live with your violence. Please do not contact me anymore.”
The mother states that in the early months of 2019, the father contacted her mobile phone approximately 20 times.
The father disagrees with the above. The father states that the parties travelled to Australia in early 2019 and returned to Country B together in a few months later in 2019.Aff Ms Jamil, 24.07.2021, p. 7 and 42 to 50.
Aff Mr Ghannam, 21.10.2021, p. 64, 70 and Annexure B.Early 2019 The father states that parties and child travelled to Australia. The father states that during this time, the father worked to approximately 3:00pm. Aff Mr Ghannam, 21.10.2021, p. 28.
Early 2019 The mother alleges that the father said to her “You know what I’m capable of and you’re aware of the people that I know. You don’t want me to harm your family, do you?” Aff Ms Jamil, 24.07.2021, p. 51 and 52. Early 2019 The father states he obtained a job offer in respect to a project in Country B. The father states that he and the mother had the following conversation:
Father: “I received a job offer in [Country B]. This is a very good offer, and we will earn a lot of money from this. I think we should return to [Country B], so that I can accept the offer and complete the work. Once the project is finished, we can return to Australia and live a more comfortable life. We can buy a house and I won’t have to work so hard.”
Mother: “Ok, we can return to [Country B], you can do the work and we can return to Australia once you have completed the job.”
Father: “Ok. I will arrange flights so we can return to [Country B].”
The father states he overheard the mother have a conversation with the maternal grandfather. The father overheard the maternal grandfather say to her “Why are you returning to [Country B]. You married to go to Australia and to get a visa which would allow you could bring your brother and our family to Australia. You need to stay in Australia.”
The father states he spoke with the maternal grandfather and had the following conversation:
Father: “I have received a job offer in [Country B]. [Ms Jamil] and I have agreed for me to take the job and for us to return to [Country B].”
Maternal Grandfather: “You will not return to [Country B]. You will both remain in Australia. If you return to Australia, I will divorce you and my daughter.”
Father: “This is not a decision for you to make, we are turning to [Country B].”Aff Mr Ghannam, 21.10.2021, p. 8 and 29 to 31.
Early 2019 The father states that the parties returned to Country B.
The father states that the mother left the father and that the mother took the child with her to live with the maternal grandparents.Aff Mr Ghannam, 21.10.2021, p. 8 and 32.
Early 2019 The father states that he went to the maternal grandparents’ home and spoke with the maternal grandfather. The father and the maternal grandfather had the following conversation:
Maternal Grandfather: “I will give you an ultimatum, you, [Ms Jamil] and [X] can return to Australia and live there, or you take you daughter and [Ms Jamil] remains here. I will not raise your daughter in my home.”
Father: “This is not your decision to make. [Ms Jamil] and I have agreed to live in [Country B].”
Maternal Grandfather: “She does not want to live in [Country B]. It is either Australia or she does not return with you.”
Father: “Your daughter only married me to obtain permanent residency in Australia. She does not care about me but I want her to care about her daughter and have a relationship with her daughter.”
The mother states that the parties agreed for the child to spend time with the father from Thursday afternoon until Saturday morning. The father’s niece collected the child from the maternal grandparents’ home.
The mother states that the father did not return the child to her or to the maternal grandparents.
The father states that the mother agreed for the child to live with the father. The father states that the mother handed the child and her belongings to the father.
Both parents state that from this event the child has been in the care of the father.
The mother states that she has not seen, spoken with, or directly communicated with the child in any way since this time (despite repeated requests).
The mother states that the parties spoke on the phone. The father said “If you want your daughter, you will have to come back and live with me and do whatever I ask of you.” The mother said “I will not return to your house after the way you treated me during our marriage. You have no right to blackmail me with my daughter. She is only 18 months old and needs to be with her mother!”
The father states that he made numerous attempts to reconcile with the mother, however the mother refused to return to the matrimonial home.Aff Ms Jamil, 24.07.2021, p. 9 and 56 to 62.
Aff Mr Ghannam, 21.10.2021, p. 34 to 36,
Aff Mr Ghannam, 24.08.2022, p. 7 and 9.Mid- 2019 The father states that he had a conversation with the maternal grandfather as follows:
Father: “[Ms Jamil] has not seen [X] in 3 months. Please speak to her. She needs to care for [X]. [X] needs her mother. I will do whatever she wants.”
Maternal Grandparent: “I will speak to [Ms Jamil].”Aff Mr Ghannam, 21.10.2021, p. 38. Mid-2019 The father states that he had a conversation with the mother as follows:
Father: “[X] is your daughter, why did you leave her? How do you have the heart to leave her?”
Mother: “I want to go back to Australia. We will have a better life there.”
Father: “We cannot go back to Australia. My work is here. You need to care for your daughter.”
Mother: “She is your daughter, she holds your blood. You go and raise her. I want you to divorce me.”
Father: “I will not divorce you. You married me to obtain a permanent visa in Australia. You do not care about me or [X]. I will cancel your temporary visa.”Aff Mr Ghannam, 21.10.2021, p. 39. Mid-2019 The mother returned to Australia. The mother arrived on a Subclass 309 Partner (Provisional) Visa which was sponsored by the father. Aff Ms Jamil, 24.07.2021, p. 3 and 78. The father states that the parties separated during this time. Aff Mr Ghannam, 21.10.2021, p. 5, 40, 41 and Annexure A.
Aff Mr Ghannam, 24.08.2022, p. 5.Mid-2019 The father states that the mother informed him that she applied for a victim’s visa so that she could remain residing in Australia on the basis that she alleged to the victim of domestic violence. Aff Mr Ghannam, 21.10.2021, p. 42.
Mid-2019 The mother became aware that the father commenced proceedings in the Court in Country B. The mother states the father sought ‘Obedience and Cohabitation’ orders and ‘Child Custody’ orders against her. Aff Ms Jamil, 24.07.2021, p. 65 to 67, 79 and Annexure A. Late 2019 The father states he commenced proceedings in the Court in Country B seeking orders for the mother to attend Court so that the parties could attend dispute resolution. The father states that the Court sent a letter to the home of the maternal grandparents requesting that the mother attend Court. As the mother was residing in Australia, the father discontinued proceedings.
The father states he commenced proceedings in the Court of Country B seeking orders in respect of the care of the child.
Note: The Affidavit of the Respondent Father does not state when parenting orders were made in relation to the child. The father states that the Court matter was adjourned on three occasions to provide the mother an opportunity to appear in Court. The mother did not attend Court on three occasions, with the maternal grandfather attending court on the third occasion to inform the Court that the mother did not want to attend.Aff Mr Ghannam, 21.10.2021, p. 44 and 45.
Late 2019 The mother obtained a ‘Partner (Subclass 100)’ Visa for herself and the child. Aff Ms Jamil, 24.07.2021, p. 83, Annexure B and Annexure C. Early 2020 The father states that he was engaged in a text message conversation with the mother where the father encouraged the mother to have a relationship with the child. The father states that the mother wanted a divorce first. Aff Mr Ghannam, 21.10.2021, p. 47.
Mid-2020 The father states he received telephone calls from the mother to:
inviting him to a Legal Aid dispute resolution conference;
to attempt to reach an agreement in respect of the care of the child.
The father states the mother’s husband contacted the father’s family friend, Mr H, in relation to resolving parenting dispute. No agreement was reached.Aff Mr Ghannam, 21.10.2021, p. 48(c), 48(d) and 62.
Mid- 2020 The father alleges that the mother’s husband sent voice recordings and messages to the father in a threatening manner. The father alleges that the husband said to him:
“If you do not let [Ms Jamil] see her daughter, I will ruin your house.”
“Do not make me put you in my mind, do you, if I put you in my mind, I will make you regret the day you were born.”
“You do not know me, you do not know me, I will make you regret your entire life.”
“If I have to come down to [Country B], I promise I will come down, I will take your soul and I will take the girl.”
“We do not want your daughter because she has the same blood as you, put her in a bucket and drink her water.”Aff Mr Ghannam, 21.10.2021, p. 54. Late 2020 Between late 2021 and early 2021, the mother states that the parties commenced negotiations for the child to be placed into the care of the mother. The mother states that the parties reached an agreement but the father later withdrew his agreement. Aff Ms Jamil, 24.07.2021, p. 70 to 77.
Mid-2021 The mother married her current husband, Mr J (“Mr J”). Aff Ms Jamil, 24.07.20 1, p. 2. Mid-2021 The mother received a message on Facebook Messenger from the father’s niece, Ms K, requesting to speak with her.
Ms K said to the mother “[Hi Ms Jamil], I am sorry about what is going on. I want you to speak to my mother so that you can solve the problem between yourself and [Mr Ghannam] and finally see your daughter.” The mother then spoke with the paternal aunt (and Ms K’s mother). The mother and paternal aunt had the following conversation:
Paternal aunt: “[Hi Ms Jamil]. I have recently spoke with [X]. [X] asked where her mother was and why everyone has a mother except her. I could not answer her. I feel guilty. I am a mother and I cannot see [X] suffering like this without her mother. I want to assist in solving the problems with you and [Mr Ghannam]. I am calling you behind [Mr Ghannam]’s back because I want [X] to see her mother.”
Mother: “I have tried all I can to get in touch with [Mr Ghannam] and I have not been able to reach him. We have tried everything we can to get through to him. I have tried my best to talk to my daughter.”
Paternal aunt: “Ok, I am talking to you behind his back. I want to help you. I have recently spoken with [Mr Ghannam] and I know he is coming back to Australia in the next few weeks. I don’t know exactly when, but I will tell you when he comes. [Mr Ghannam] is planning on staying here forever. He wants to find work in Australia and establish himself here. If [Mr Ghannam] realises there is any possibility that you’re planning on taking [X] or on starting court action against him, he will take [X] and leave with her to [Country B].”Aff Ms Jamil, 24.07.2021, p. 85.
Mid-2021 The father and the child returned to Australia. The father and the child lived with his sister, Ms E.
The mother and paternal aunt had the following telephone conversation:
Paternal aunt: “[Hi Ms Jamil], [Mr Ghannam] and [X] are in Australia. They arrived in Australia a couple of days ago. They are currently in hotel quarantine and when they get out, [X] will be living with me. He will be leaving [X] with me whilst he searches for work trying to make a new life for himself in Australia He is planning on staying here forever. [Mr Ghannam] said he won’t be able to look after [X] himself, so he will be leaving her with me while he tries to set up his life. If you want to see your daughter, you have to come to my home in Sydney and see her.
Otherwise, you will never get the chance to see her, because [X] is going to become my responsibility after [Mr Ghannam] leaves her with me.”
Mother: Why doesn’t he give me my daughter then?”
Paternal aunt: “[Mr Ghannam] does not want [X] to be outside of Sydney because he wants to visit her any time that he wants. If you were in Sydney, you probably would have been able to see your daughter. He might allow you to see her. [Mr Ghannam] can’t keep looking after [X] because he wants to establish himself in Australia. He wants to find work and will be leaving [X] with me. Once he finds a job he will move out and I will have custody of [X] because he wants to move on with his life. With this, if you come to Sydney, I will let you see [X].”
Mother: “I ran away from [Country B] to here to save myself from [Mr Ghannam]. I don’t trust [Mr Ghannam] and I don’t want to be in the same place as him. I cannot come to Sydney as I’m married in Brisbane and recently gave birth. I cannot come to Sydney at the moment. I don’t trust [Mr Ghannam]. I don’t ever want to see him again. The only reason I’m in Australia is because I ran away from him.”
Paternal aunt: “That was in the past. He is a changed man. Let us solve this problem.”
Mother: “I don’t trust [Mr Ghannam].”Aff Ms Jamil, 24.07.2021, p. 86.
Aff Mr Ghannam, 21.10.2021, p. 56 and 57.
Aff Mr Ghannam, 24.08.2022, p. 8.6 October 2021 Matter listed for Directions at Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) before a Registrar.
The matter was listed for Interim Hearing on 5 November 2021.
The matter was also listed for Court-based Family Dispute Resolution Conference on 3 December 2021.3 December 2021 Matter listed for Dispute Resolution Conference with a Judicial Registrar.
The mother did not attend.16 December 2021 Matter listed for Directions at Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) before a Registrar.
The matter listed for further Directions on 25 February 2022.
The Court ordered that if the Applicant Mother does not appear on the next occasion, the proceedings will be dismissed or the matter listed for undefended hearing on behalf of the Respondent Father and orders will be made in her absence.17 June 2022 Matter listed for Directions at Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) before a Judicial Registrar.
The matter listed for further Directions on 11 November 2022.
The Court ordered parties and child to attend with a Court Child Expert.
Previous Order 1 of Orders dated 6 October 2021 (being the Order relating to telephone contact) was varied so that the mother shall be at a liberty to telephone or video call the child on Ms E’s mobile phone and/or device with such time commencing between 5:00pm and 5:30pm each Monday and Wednesday, and the father shall facilitate such calls by ensuring the availability of the child and ensuring the availability of Ms E to accept such mobile phone and/or video calls for such purpose.Mid- 2022 The paternal aunt, Ms L (“Ms L”), was diagnosed with lung cancer. Aff Mr Ghannam, 24.08.2022, p. 12. Mid-2022 The father made arrangements to travel to Country B to visit paternal aunt, Ms L, and family. Aff Mr Ghannam, 24.08.2022, p. 16. Mid-2022 The father and child arrived at the airport. The father was advised that the child was unable to travel as there was a Court order which placed her on the Airport Watch List. Aff Mr Ghannam, 24.08.2022, p. 17. Mid- 2022 The father states that the paternal aunt, Ms L, contacted the mother to see whether the mother would agree for the child to attend. The father states that the mother refused to agree to any arrangements about the child. Aff Mr Ghannam, 24.08.2022, p. 29. Mid- 2022 The father’s solicitor wrote to the Independent Children’s Lawyer and the mother seeking consent to the proposed travel to Country B. The father states that the mother indicated that she does not consent to the child travelling to Country B. Aff Mr Ghannam, 24.08.2022, p. 30.
0
0
0