State Central Authority and Tyler (No. 2)

[2013] FamCA 398

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

STATE CENTRAL AUTHORITY & TYLER (NO. 2) [2013] FamCA 398

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN –Issues in the return of the child to New Zealand

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

APPLICANT: State Central Authority

RESPONDENT: Ms Tyler

FILE NUMBER: MLC 11839 of 2012

DATE DELIVERED: 6 March 2013

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Cronin J

HEARING DATE: 6 March 2013

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Ms Nolan

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Department of Human Services

THE RESPONDENT: No appearance

Orders

1. That paragraph 2 of the annexures attached to the orders of 25 February 2013 is discharged.

2. That otherwise the application filed 6 March 2013 is adjourned to 10.00am on 13 March 2013 before the Honourable Justice Macmillan.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym State Central Authority & Tyler (No. 2) 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 11839 of 2012

State Central Authority

Applicant

And

Ms Tyler

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an urgent ex parte application arising out of an order that was made by Kent J on 25 February.  His Honour has given ex tempore reasons for the orders.  In essence, the child of the relationship has been ordered to be returned to New Zealand and I need say no more about that.  It was anticipated at the time that the mother would be taking the child back to New Zealand and that the passport for that purpose, which was then being held by the court, would have been released into her care.  It now transpires that problems have arisen. 

2. It has come to the attention of the State Central Authority that the requesting father had received a message from the mother indicating that he had to come over to Australia to pick the child up.  Subsequent discussions have indicated that there is some doubt, certainly in my mind, as to exactly what the mother’s intentions are.   I have regard to the orders that Kent J made and the importance of implementing them expeditiously.

3. It would trouble me if the mother, who has, in my experience, not been entirely cooperative in this whole process, had the opportunity now to rely on the order and come into the court and collect her passport.  So, on that basis I propose to discharge paragraph 2 of the annexure to the orders of 25 February.  I will otherwise adjourn the matter to Wednesday, 13 March 2013 at 10 am before a judge to be decided on the basis that the mother needs to be heard as to whether in fact she is going to be returning to New Zealand with the child or some other arrangement is to be made. 

I certify that the preceding three (3) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cronin delivered on 6 March 2013.

Associate: 

Date:  22 April 2013