Re F (Hague Convention: Child's Objections)

The Full Court of the Family Court of Australia considered an appeal concerning the application of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The appeal involved a father seeking the return of his child to New Zealand, while the mother resisted the return, arguing that the child had attained an age and maturity at which her objections to returning should be considered.

The central legal issue before the Full Court was whether the child's objections to returning to New Zealand were of such weight as to justify refusing the father's application for her return under Article 13(b) of the Hague Convention. This required the Court to determine the appropriate age and maturity threshold at which a child's objections should be given significant consideration and how to assess the weight of those objections in the context of the Convention's objectives.

The Full Court reasoned that while the Hague Convention does not specify a precise age for considering a child's objections, the child's age, maturity, and understanding are crucial factors. The Court emphasised that the weight given to a child's objections should be proportionate to their capacity to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings and the decision to be made. In this instance, the Court found that the child, aged 11, possessed sufficient maturity to express well-reasoned objections to returning to New Zealand, which were based on her established life, schooling, and relationships in Australia. The Court affirmed that the paramount consideration remains the child's welfare, and that a child's objections, when maturely expressed, are a significant element in determining whether their return would be unjust or unreasonable.

The Full Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the primary judge's order for the child's return and remitting the matter for redetermination by a single judge, with directions to give due weight to the child's objections.