Kazmi and Botros

In *Kazmi & Botros* [2014] FamCA 56, the Family Court of Australia considered an urgent application by the mother, Ms Kazmi, for interim parenting orders concerning her two young children, L (born October 2008) and Y (born August 2011). The application was made ex parte due to the urgency of the situation, which involved the father, Mr Botros, having recently removed child L from the mother's care. The mother sought orders for the children to live with her, for the father to be restrained from contacting or approaching her and the children, and for a recovery order for child L.

The central legal issues before the Court were whether to grant the urgent ex parte applications for interim parenting orders, including a recovery order for child L, and whether to place the children on the Australian Airport Watch List. The Court was required to consider the paramountcy of the children's best interests, as outlined in section 60CA of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), and the specific considerations set out in section 60CC of the Act, particularly the need to protect the children from physical or psychological harm and family violence. The Court also had to determine if the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility under section 61DA was displaced by the circumstances.

Justice Foster applied the principles governing ex parte applications under Rule 5.12 of the *Family Law Rules 2004* (Cth) and found that the mother had complied with the requirements for such an application. The Court considered the extensive history of domestic violence alleged by the mother against the father, including past incidents in Australia and Lebanon, and the father's alleged attempts to prevent the mother and children from leaving Lebanon and to remove them from Australia. Crucially, the Court noted that the father had recently removed child L from the mother's care, leaving her unaware of their whereabouts, and that the father had been prevented from leaving Australia with child L by the Australian Federal Police shortly before these proceedings. In light of these circumstances, the Court found that the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility was displaced, and the paramount consideration was the protection of the children from harm.

The Court made orders that the children Y and L live with the mother, and that the father be restrained from contacting or approaching the mother and children, with a power of arrest attached. A recovery order was issued for child L, directing law enforcement agencies to find and recover the child and deliver them to the mother. Both children were placed on the Australian Airport Watch List for two years, and the Australian Federal Police were requested to maintain an airport watch on the children. The matter was adjourned for further directions.