Randle & Randle

In the Family Court of Australia, Ms Randle sought a summary order for the return of her child, S Randle, to the United Arab Emirates. The court was required to determine whether the applicable test was *forum non conveniens* or the best interests of the child, and whether it possessed the power and discretion to exercise its welfare jurisdiction to make a summary order for the child's return to a non-Convention country.

Kent J considered the principles governing the exercise of the court's jurisdiction in child-related matters, particularly concerning international relocation and the paramountcy of the child's welfare. The court examined the distinction between applications brought under the Hague Convention and those seeking summary return to non-Convention countries, noting that the latter requires a careful balancing of competing interests. The court's discretion in such matters is guided by the overarching principle of acting in the best interests of the child.

Ultimately, Kent J dismissed Ms Randle's application for a summary order for the child's return. The court ordered that the child's interests be independently represented by a lawyer, with arrangements to be made by Legal Aid Queensland. Further directions were given regarding the appointment and role of the Independent Children’s Lawyer, the preparation of a Family Report by a Family Consultant, and the attendance of the parties and the child at necessary appointments. Costs were reserved, and the matter was adjourned for a four-day trial commencing on 29 November 2011, with further trial directions to be fixed.