MATTHEWS & NORRIS

In the Family Court of Australia, Austin J considered applications by a mother and father concerning their child, B. The mother sought interim orders to relocate with B to New Zealand, an application that had been dismissed twice previously. The father sought a recovery order for B, alleging the mother had ceased allowing B to spend time with him and was not faithfully implementing existing parenting orders. The father also sought leave to rely on a second affidavit in reply to the mother's response.

The court was required to determine whether to grant the mother's application for interim relocation, whether to issue a recovery order for the child, and whether to permit the father to rely on an additional affidavit. The admissibility of the father's second affidavit was governed by rule 9.07 of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

Austin J granted the father leave to rely on his second affidavit. Regarding the mother's relocation application, the court found no evidence of changed circumstances since the previous dismissals and therefore dismissed her application. The court also issued a recovery order for B, authorising law enforcement to find and recover the child and deliver B to the father, with the order to remain in force for one month. This decision was made in light of the mother's failure to comply with existing parenting orders and her absence from court when her own application-contravention was called on for hearing.

The court ordered that the mother's application for relocation and her application-contravention be dismissed. The recovery order was issued and to remain in force for one month. The proceedings were adjourned for further procedural directions regarding substantive applications under Parts VII and VIII of the Family Law Act.