State Central Authority and Madan

[2013] FamCA 93

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

STATE CENTRAL AUTHORITY & MADAN [2013] FamCA 93

FAMILY LAW – CHILD ABDUCTION – Hague convention – orders to assist location of respondent mother and two children

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
Family Law (Child Abduction Convention) Regulations 1986

APPLICANT: State Central Authority

RESPONDENT: Ms Maran

FILE NUMBER: MLC 277 of 2013

DATE DELIVERED: 25 January 2013

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Cronin J

HEARING DATE: 25 January 2013

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Ms Wilson

THE RESPONDENT: In person

Orders

1. That the application of the applicant is adjourned to 9.00am on 15 February 2013.

2. That pursuant to section 67N of the Family Law Act 1975, the Secretary to the Department of Human Services (Federal) provide the Registrar of the Family Court of Australia at Melbourne (‘the Registrar’) such information that is contained in the records of:

   (a)Medicare or that Medicare may obtain; and

   (b)Centrelink or that Centrelink may obtain,

   in relation to the whereabouts of:

   i.The respondent mother MS MADAN born … May 1973 in Africa (a New Zealand citizen); and

   ii.The child B born 22 November 2008 in Auckland, New Zealand; and

   iii.The child F born … May 2011 in Auckland, New Zealand. 

3. That the Secretary to the Department of Human Services not be required to search the records of Medicare and Centrelink more than once every month during the currency of the order which shall be one year from the date hereof. 

4. That, pursuant to section 67M of the Family Law Act 1975, the General Manager of the Residential Tenancies Bond Authority (‘the Authority’) provide to the Registrar of the Family Court of Australia at Melbourne such information that is contained in the records of the Authority or that the Authority may obtain in relation to the whereabouts of the respondent mother MS MADAN born … May 1973 in Africa (a New Zealand citizen).

5. That the General Manager of the Residential Tenancies Bond Authority not be required to search the records of the Authority more than once every month during the currency of this order which shall be for one year from the date hereof. 

6. That, pursuant to section 67M of the Family Law Act 1975, the Director, Vic Roads (’VR’) provide to the Registrar of the Family Court of Australia at Melbourne such information that is contained in the records of VR or that the VR may obtain information that is contained in the records of VR or that VR may obtain in relation to the whereabouts of the respondent mother MS MADAN born 30 May 1973 in Africa (a New Zealand citizen).

7. That the Director, Vic Roads not be required to search the records of the Department more than once every month during the currency of this order which shall be for one year from the date hereof.

8. That leave be granted to disclose the information provided to the Registrar by:

   i.the Secretary of the Department of Human Services pursuant to order 1 above;

   ii.the General Manager of the Residential Tenancies Bond Authority pursuant to order 3 above;

   iii.the Director, Vic Roads pursuant to order 5 above; and

   to the solicitor for the applicant, a process server engaged by the solicitor for the applicant and to the employees of the Commonwealth Central Authority and all State and Territorial Central Authorities.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym State Central Authority & Madan has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 277 of 2013

STATE CENTRAL AUTHORITY

Applicant

And

Ms Madan

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application brought on quickly by an application in a case filed on 23 January by the Department seeking information orders.  There is an information order for the Commonwealth and information orders relating to various State authorities.  The State authorities have not been served but they are not prejudiced by the making of the order without notice because of the fact that they have ample time to respond and there is no deadline for them.  The Commonwealth location order is somewhat different but I have been advised that they have indicated they have no problems about the abridgement of time and the information is sought by one Commonwealth body for the purposes of assisting another.  So there should not be any prejudice there either.

2. This is a matter under the Hague Convention and there is an amount of urgency about it, so the prejudice to the Government departments ought be overridden by the necessity to think of the interests of the child or children in this case. I am satisfied that it is appropriate to make the orders under section 67N notwithstanding formal service may not be proved and in respect of the orders for section 67M there should not be a problem because the relevant departments can comply as soon as they possibly can.

I certify that the preceding two (2) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cronin delivered on 25 January 2012.

Associate: 

Date:  14 February 2013