State Central Authority and Munro

[2014] FamCA 422

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

STATE CENTRAL AUTHORITY & MUNRO [2014] FamCA 422

FAMILY LAW – ORDERS – Interim

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: State Central Authority

RESPONDENT: Ms Munro

FILE NUMBER: MLC 3527 of 2014

DATE DELIVERED: 30 April 2014

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Cronin J

HEARING DATE: 30 April 2014

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Ms Fedele

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Department of Human Services

THE RESPONDENT: No appearance

Orders

1. THAT leave is granted to the applicant to proceed ex parte with orders in terms of paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) of the application filed on 28 April 2014.

2. THAT the application be adjourned for further hearing on 7 May 2014 at 9:00am.

3. THAT the applicant effect service of the application and this Order on the respondent mother as soon as practicable.

4. THAT in the event that the respondent mother has been served with the application by the adjourned date:

   (a)she file and serve an affidavit in response to the application indicating her defence to the application no later than 9 am on 7 May 2014;

   (b)       she file and serve a Notice for Address for Service; and

   (c)she attend Court personally on 7 May 2014 at 9:00am and remain at Court pending further order of the Court.

5. THAT until further order, the respondent mother, her servants or agents be restrained by injunction from causing or permitting or suffering the child D (born … 2006), (“the child”):

   (a)to be removed from the Commonwealth of Australia, and in this regard all officers of the Australian Federal Police be directed to enforce, if required, the provisions of such order;

   (b)to be removed from the State of Victoria; or

   (c)to reside at any address other than their present residential address or any other residence at which the applicant has agreed that the child reside. 

6. THAT the Australian Federal Police place the name of the child on the Airport Watch List in force at all points of arrival and departure in the Commonwealth of Australia and maintain the child’s name on the Airport Watch List until further order of the Court.

7. THAT the respondent mother, her servants or agents forthwith deliver up to the Registrar of the Family Court of Australia at Melbourne for safe custody any and all passports held in the name of the child or upon which the child appears and be restrained from applying for any further or other passports for the child pending further orders of this Court.

8. THAT a sealed copy of these Orders be provided forthwith to the Marshal of the Family Court of Australia, the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police and the Secretary of the Commonwealth Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym State Central Authority & Munro 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 3527 of 2014

State Central Authority

Applicant

And

Ms Munro

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application brought by the State Central Authority under the (Child Abduction Convention) Regulations 1986, seeking the return of a child aged seven to New Zealand.  There is an order of the New Zealand Court indicating that there are proceedings still extant in that country, and that, to some extent, regulates the parties’ time with the child.  It seems that the parties reached an agreement that the mother would come to Australia for a discrete period during the Australian summer holidays, and that accords with the interim parenting order made on 9 April 2013. 

2. On 29 December 2013 the requesting father received a text message that the child had arrived safely in Australia, and some telephone contact occurred on 7 January.  On 22 January the requesting father contacted the mother, and she advised that her father would accompany the child back to New Zealand.  One can conclude, therefore, that there was every intention to return.  On 25 January the requesting father was informed by text message that the child had not boarded the flight, and that he would be receiving Court papers, and if he had any questions he should contact her lawyer.  Indeed, the mother appears to have gone back and taken some other steps.

3. Amongst the material that is in the application are some text messages which, if they indicate the standard of the parenting and the language used between the parties, this child is in for a fairly rocky future, and I quote:

   Don’t ask my son to pray for that fuckin’ maggot’s kid.  Fuck you.  He doesn’t want to talk to you any more.  You fucked up as a mum.  Fuck off and leave him alone.  Useless bitch.  Hope [B]’s reading this –

   and so it goes on. 

4. As the mother, having not complied with the relevant provisions of the orders, let alone the agreement, and ignored the rights of the father, I find it is appropriate that the matter proceed today on an ex parte basis, and I will make the orders in the usual terms.

ORDERS DELIVERED

1. Those orders will be expedited and if you will send them in the usual way.

I certify that the preceding five (5) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cronin delivered on 30 April 2014.

Associate: 

Date:  18 June 2014