State Central Authority and Jamile

[2010] FamCA 1277

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

STATE CENTRAL AUTHORITY & JAMILE [2010] FamCA 1277

FAMILY LAW – Hague Convention – application withdrawn after conciliation

APPLICANT: State Central Authority

RESPONDENT: Ms Jamile

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Mr TJ Mulvany

FILE NUMBER: MLC 3187 of 2010

DATE DELIVERED: 28 May 2010

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Bennett J

HEARING DATE: 28 May 2010

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Ms Wilson

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Legal Services Branch, Department of Human Services

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Piekarski, Duty Solicitor

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER T J Mulvany & Co

Orders

1. That leave is granted to the applicant State Central Authority to file a Notice of Discontinuance. 

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym State Central Authority & Jimale is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 3187 of 2010

State Central Authority

Applicant

And

Ms Jamile

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. In this matter of State Central Authority & Jamile, the State Central Authority today files a notice of discontinuance of its application filed on 9 April 2010 for the return of the children, B born … 1995 and C born … 1996 - to Denmark pursuant to the Child Abduction Convention regulations.

2. The matter was initially before me on 16 April.  An independent children's lawyer has been appointed for the children.

3. The respondent to the application was the paternal aunt.  Both natural parents of the children are deceased. 

4. The notice of discontinuance comes after the Australian Central Authority has been advised by its counterpart in Denmark that the Hague Convention application is no longer to be pursued.  I am told that the agreement was reached after a family conference by telephone link arranged by one of the children’s aunts who resides in Canada and facilitated by the Danish consul in Melbourne with family members in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Finland.

5. The older sister of the children, D, was also in attendance, as was the step father of the children, on whose request the Hague convention application was made.  It was resolved by all that the children could remain in Australia. 

6. The independent children's lawyer, Mr Mulvany, has referred me this morning to a letter dated 3 May 2010 from the Royal Danish Consulate General which reads:

   After extensive talks with the eldest girl ([D]) who is living in Denmark and the rest of the family who is in Australia and also the children who are living in Australia, we have come to the decision that the children should be best in Australia.  The children are themselves very happy to stay in Australia together with their family, therefore we will withdraw our previous application to have the children returned to Denmark.

7. Whilst that is on the correspondence of the Royal Danish Consulate General, it is signed by Mr E, who requested the return of the children in the first place.  I grant leave for the notice of discontinuance to be filed.  The proceedings are at an end.  I accept that the children will remain in the care of the paternal aunt, however there are no parenting orders in relation to them.

I certify that the preceding seven (7) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Bennett

Associate: 

Date:  23 December 2010