LIAO & HANSLEY

In *Liao & Hansley*, the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the mother, Ms Liao, for orders permitting her and the child, B, to travel to the People's Republic of China for one month. The father, Mr Hansley, opposed this application. The core of the dispute revolved around the potential risk of the child not returning to Australia, particularly given that China is not a signatory to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

The court was required to determine whether there was an unacceptable risk of the child not being returned to Australia. In making this determination, the court had to consider the best interests of the child, as mandated by section 60CC of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). This included assessing the child's entitlement to share in the mother's cultural heritage and the fact that the child is an Australian citizen.

Justice Ryan found that the risk of non-return was low. The court considered the mother's established ties to Australia, including her ongoing TAFE course and a business opportunity scheduled for mid-November. Furthermore, the court acknowledged the benefits for the child in experiencing his Chinese cultural heritage and spending time with his maternal grandmother, who was too ill to travel. To mitigate any residual risk, the court ordered the mother to deposit $40,000 with her solicitors, to be held in a controlled monies account pending the child's return to Australia.

The court ultimately allowed the application for travel, ordering that the child could travel to China between 16 September 2011 and 17 October 2011. The orders also stipulated daily telephone communication between the child and the father, and required the father to provide consent for the child's Australian passport. The deposited funds were to be returned to the mother upon the child's return by the specified date, with provisions for the father to apply for release of the funds should the child not return.