Laxton and Laxton & Anor

In this matter before Gill J, the father, Mr Laxton, sought parenting orders concerning the child B, born in 2007. The dispute involved the child's return to Beijing, China, to reside with her mother. The proceedings were heard summarily.

The central legal issue before the court was whether it had jurisdiction to make parenting orders concerning the child, given that China is not a Hague Convention country and existing orders were made by the High Court in the United Kingdom. The court was also required to consider the best interests of the child in determining the appropriate parenting orders.

Gill J reasoned that the court had jurisdiction to make parenting orders in Australia, notwithstanding the child's habitual residence in China and the existence of UK orders. The court applied the principle that Australian courts retain jurisdiction in child-related matters where a child is physically present within Australia, and that the best interests of the child are paramount. The court found that it was in the child's best interests to return to her mother in China.

Consequently, the court made orders requiring the father to cause the child to travel to Beijing, China, forthwith, to arrive no later than 22 August 2016, and to return her British passport to the mother. The mother was ordered to return the child's Australian passport to the father, as the child would depart Australia on that passport. The father was made responsible for the child's travel costs, and all pending applications were dismissed.