Sora and Mikan and Anor

The proceedings before the Family Court of Australia concerned parenting orders for a child, B Mikan, born in Japan in June 2009. The applicant mother, Ms Sora, sought orders for the child to live with her and to return permanently to Japan. The first respondent father, Mr Mikan, and the second respondent paternal grandmother, Ms Morgan, sought orders for the child to remain in Australia with the father and paternal grandmother. The child had been brought to Australia by the father in October 2011 without the mother's consent, and had since resided with the paternal grandmother.

The Court was required to determine several legal issues, including with whom the child should live, considering the paramount consideration of the child's best interests. This involved assessing the potential relocation of the child to Japan, a country not a signatory to the Hague Convention, and the implications of Japanese law. Furthermore, the Court had to consider the risks to the child from potential dangers in Japan, such as earthquakes, tsunamis, and radiation, and apply the legal concept of acceptable risk in its determination.

Justice Fowler's reasoning focused on the best interests of the child, applying principles from cases such as *Cowley v Mendoza*, *Taylor v Barker*, and *U v U*. The Court considered the evidence regarding the parents' relationship, the child's upbringing in Japan and Australia, and the potential impact of relocation on the child's welfare. The Court also weighed the risks associated with living in Japan against the benefits of living with the mother and her family, and the father's capacity to provide care in Australia. The Court found that the mother had sole parental responsibility under Japanese law and that the child's return to Japan with the mother was in his best interests.

The Court ordered the discharge of all previous parenting orders. Ms Sora was granted sole parental responsibility for the child and permitted to remove the child permanently from Australia to live in Japan. The father was restrained from removing the child from Japan. The orders also detailed arrangements for the child to spend time with the father and paternal grandmother in both Australia and Japan, including provisions for travel costs, communication, and the exchange of important documents. The parents were also directed to seek consent orders in Japan to mirror the Australian orders.