Merrick and Wellington

Ms Merrick applied to the Family Court of Australia for parenting orders that would reflect a child arrangements order made in the United Kingdom. The application was consented to by the respondent father, Mr Wellington. The court was asked to make orders concerning the child, A, born in 2008, who was then residing in the United Kingdom with her mother.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether it had jurisdiction to make parenting orders that mirrored the UK order, particularly given the child's habitual residence at the time. The court was also required to consider the application of the 1996 Child Protection Convention and the relevant provisions of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) concerning international jurisdiction and the recognition of overseas orders.

The court reasoned that the application fell within the scope of the 1996 Child Protection Convention, which allowed Australian courts to exercise jurisdiction in certain circumstances, including when a child is present in a convention country and their habitual residence is Australia, or when the competent authority in the country of habitual residence agrees to the Australian court assuming jurisdiction. Although the child was not yet habitually resident in Australia, the court inferred the agreement of the UK court to the Australian court assuming jurisdiction, as the UK order made the child's relocation conditional upon the Family Court of Australia making reflecting orders. The court also noted that the application was being processed under a simple and rapid procedure, as permitted by the *Family Law (Child Protection Convention) Regulations 2003*, to minimise expense and ensure efficiency.

By consent, the court made orders reflecting the UK child arrangements order. These orders established equal shared parental responsibility, stipulated that the child live with the mother, and detailed extensive time-spent and communication arrangements between the child and the father, both in the United Kingdom and Australia. The orders also addressed travel, financial responsibilities for travel, notification requirements, and provisions for the exchange of passport and medical information. The court granted leave for practitioners to appear and relieved the parties from compliance with certain Family Law Rules to facilitate a simple and rapid process. The court also reserved liberty to apply regarding the implementation of the orders and noted that the orders were intended to apply immediately upon the child's relocation to Australia.