Sawer & Hugh (No. 3)

In *Sawer & Hugh (No. 3)*, Bennett J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application by a mother for the return of her child, J, who had run away from her care to reside with the paternal grandparents. The dispute centred on the child's residence and the role of the father, who was not a party to the proceedings but was aligned with the paternal grandparents. The mother sought a recovery order for J, while the grandparents sought orders for J to live with them.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether to grant the mother's application for a recovery order and the grandparents' application for J to live with them, both within the overarching framework of the child's best interests. The court also had to consider the implications of the father's alleged emotional abuse of the child, despite his non-party status, and the alignment of the paternal grandparents with him. The applicability of the *Evidence Act 1995* (Cth) was also a consideration.

Bennett J reasoned that the child's best interests, as mandated by family law legislation, required J to be returned to the mother's care, as per a prior court order. The court found that the paternal grandparents' alignment with the father, coupled with the father's alleged emotional abuse, created an environment detrimental to J's well-being if J were to reside with them. The court ordered the paternal grandparents to return J to the mother by a specified time that evening, and further restrained the father and his partner from participating in the child's transport. The mother's application for a recovery order and the grandparents' application for J to live with them were otherwise dismissed.