Ortona and Peters

In the matter of *Ortona and Peters*, Thornton J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application concerning the welfare and recovery of two children. The dispute involved the father seeking to enforce existing parenting orders and recover the children, who were allegedly with the mother. A key element of the proceedings was the existence of an interim intervention order made by a state court, which the father contended was inconsistent with the Family Court’s jurisdiction.

The court was required to determine whether the interim intervention order made by the state court was inconsistent with the Family Court’s parenting orders, and if so, to what extent the state order was invalid. Furthermore, the court had to consider the father's application for a recovery order to locate and return the children to his care, as well as address the mother's alleged removal of the children contrary to existing court orders. The court also had to consider the practical arrangements for the children's care and the mother's ability to communicate with them.

Thornton J applied sections 68Q and 67U of the *Family Law Act 1975*. The court declared that the interim intervention order was inconsistent with the Family Court’s orders and therefore invalid to the extent of that inconsistency, pursuant to s 68Q. The court then issued a recovery order under s 67U, authorising law enforcement officers to find and return the children to the father, who was the custodial parent under previous Federal Circuit Court orders. The court also made orders restraining the mother from removing the children from the father's care and provided for the resumption of existing week-about care arrangements. Liberty was reserved for the mother to apply for orders to spend time or communicate with the children.