Khan v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs

In the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, the case of Khan v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs involved the parents of three children, who had separated in 2020. The matter concerned interim parenting orders made in September 2021, which specified living arrangements and visitation schedules for the children with both parents. The mother had retained the children, preventing the father from exercising his visitation rights as per the orders. The father applied for a recovery order to enforce the interim parenting orders, while the mother provided evidence of family violence that remained untested. The court had to determine whether to grant the recovery order and consider the untested evidence of family violence.

The legal issues before the court included whether to grant the father's application for a recovery order to enforce the interim parenting orders, and whether to consider the untested evidence of family violence provided by the mother. The court had to balance the principle that the evidence should be tested against the need to protect the children from potential harm, particularly given their ages and ability to express their views. The court also had to consider the views of the children, especially the eldest child who was 14 years old.

The court dismissed the father's application for a recovery order, noting that the evidence of family violence was untested and the children were of an age where their views should be given significant weight. The court found that the evidence provided by the mother, though untested, indicated that the children might be in an intolerable situation if the father's visitation rights were reinstated. The court suspended certain orders and mandated supervised contact between the father and the children, subject to the views of the children, particularly the eldest child. The Independent Children's Lawyer was given liberty to relist the matter if necessary, and the case was listed for further determination.

The final orders included the dismissal of the recovery order application, the suspension of certain interim orders, the requirement for the parents to register for supervised contact, and the provision for supervised contact between the father and the children. The Independent Children’s Lawyer was granted liberty to relist the matter, and the case was scheduled for further determination and case management.