KOEHLER & KOEHLER

The case involved an application by the mother for parenting orders concerning the child, N. The father had previously initiated proceedings seeking the child's return to Germany, which were dismissed. The court was required to determine whether it had jurisdiction, specifically whether the child was habitually resident in Australia under section 111CD of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). Additionally, the court had to consider the best interests of the child in making parenting orders, particularly given the father's non-compliance with previous orders, his failure to appear at the final hearing, and allegations that he posed a risk to the child.

Johns J found that the court had jurisdiction, concluding that the child was habitually resident in Australia. This finding was based on evidence that the child had lived in Australia for two years and was settled there. In relation to the parenting orders, the court noted the father's failure to comply with orders and his absence from the hearing. The mother alleged that the father had instituted criminal proceedings in Germany that would lead to her arrest if she returned, and that he posed a risk to the child. The court considered the best interests of the child, taking into account the mother's sole care of the child since late 2013, her provision for the child's needs, and her improved mental health. The court also considered the practicalities of the child spending time and communicating with the father.

The court made final orders granting the mother sole parental responsibility, with specific provisions for her to consult the father on major educational and medical decisions. The child was ordered to live with the mother. The father was to spend time and communicate with the child in Australia on up to two occasions per year for up to 14 days, and via Skype each Sunday. The father was to bear the cost of the child's travel for these visits. The mother was permitted to apply for an Australian passport for the child without the father's consent, and the child was permitted to have an Australian passport and travel internationally. The father was ordered to serve a copy of the orders and reasons for judgment on the father's German lawyers and was given a period to file any application to set aside the orders, along with an affidavit explaining his non-compliance and failure to appear. All other extant applications were dismissed.