Karim & Khalid

[2007] FamCA 1287

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

KARIM & KHALID [2007] FamCA 1287

FAMILY LAW - APPEAL – CHILDREN – Bests interests of the child test to apply to applications for the return of a child to a country that is not a party to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – s 67ZC
Family Law Amendment Act 1983 (Cth)
Family Law Reform Act 1995 (Cth)

ZP v PS (1994) 181 CLR 639; (1994) FLC 92-480
B v B (Re jurisdiction) (2003) FLC 93-136
EJK & TSL  [2006] FamCA 730; (2006) FLC 93-287

CSR Ltd v Cigna Insurance Australia Ltd (1997) 189 CLR 34
Dobson and Van Londen (2005) FLC 93-225; (2005) 33 Fam LR 525
Henry v Henry (1996) 185 CLR 571; 20 Fam LR 171
Karides v Wilson (1998) FLC 92-823
JJT and CTT (2004) FLC 93-198

APPELLANT: Mr Karim

RESPONDENT: Ms Khalid

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Mr Dunkley

FILE NUMBER: PAF 556 of 2005

APPEAL NUMBER: EA 70 of 2005

DATE DELIVERED: 1 November 2007

PLACE DELIVERED: Canberra

JUDGMENT OF: Finn, Coleman and May JJ

HEARING DATE: 6 December 2006

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Family Court of Australia

LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE: 8 June 2005

LOWER COURT MNC: [2005] FamCA 1390

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT: Mr Geddes QC

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPELLANT: DM Roberts & Co Solicitors

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Lloyd

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Prosilis Lawyers

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER COUNSEL: Mr Dunkley

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER SOLICITOR: McPhee Kelshaw

Orders

1. That the appeal be dismissed.

2. That each party pay his or her own costs in relation to the appeal.

IT IS NOTED IN CONNECTION WITH THESE ORDERS that the judgment of the Full Court delivered this day will for all publication and reporting purposes be referred to as Karim & Khalid.

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT CANBERRA

Appeal Number: EA 70 of 2005
File Number: PAF 556 of 2005

Mr Karim

Appellant

And

Ms Khalid

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. This is an appeal by Mr Karim (to whom we will refer variously as “the husband” or “the father”) against all orders made by Watts J on 20 May 2005 in proceedings between the husband and Ms Khalid (to whom we will refer variously as “the wife” or “the mother”).

2. The effect of his Honour’s orders was to refuse on an interim basis the husband’s application for the return to Pakistan of the child of the parties’ marriage, and to order on an interim basis that the child reside with the wife and have gradually increasing contact with the husband. Pakistan is not a party to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (“the Hague Convention”).

3. As the full import of his Honour’s orders can only be understood if they are read together with the orders sought by the husband in a response filed by him on 4 April 2005, we annex the full text of the orders sought by the…