State Central Authority and Uurainen

[2008] FamCA 659

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

STATE CENTRAL AUTHORITY & UURAINEN [2008] FamCA 659

FAMILY LAW – CHILD ABDUCTION – Hague Convention – Child brought to Australia

APPLICANT: STATE CENTRAL AUTHORITY

RESPONDENT: MS UURAINEN

FILE NUMBER: MLC 6385 of 2008

DATE DELIVERED: 16 July 2008

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Cronin J

HEARING DATE: 16 June 2008

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: MS CAREY

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Orders

1. That the applicant has leave to proceed without notice to the respondent.

2. That until further order, the respondent, MS UURAINEN, both personally or by her servants and agents be, and is hereby, restrained from:

   (a)removing or attempting to remove the child … born … December 2003 from the Commonwealth of Australia;

   (b)removing or attempting to remove the said child from the State of Victoria; or

   (c)causing or permitting or suffering the current place of residence of the said child to be changed without the prior written consent of the applicant, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld.

3. That the respondent, 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 said child or upon which the said child appears and be restrained from applying for any further or other passports for the said child pending further orders of this Court, and thereafter, each party be at liberty to inspect the passports upon arrangements being made with the Registry Manager.

4. That such Officers of the Department of Human Services, Victoria, as the Secretary to such Department may from time to time direct, be requested and permitted to visit and enter the place of residence of the respondent and to have such access to the said child as they may reasonably require for the purposes of investigating and determining the welfare of the said child.

AND IT IS REQUESTED:

1. That  the Australian Federal Police give effect to sub-paragraph 2 (a) of this Order by placing the name of the said child on the Airport Watch List in force at all points of arrival and departure of the Commonwealth of Australia and maintain the said child’s name on the Watch List until further order of the Court.

AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED:

1. That the applicant forthwith provide a sealed copy of this Order to the Australian Federal Police.

2. That the applicant serve a copy of this Order and the Form 2 Application on the respondent as soon as practicable and thereafter the respondent forthwith file a Notice of Address for Service.

3. That the application be adjourned to 25 July 2008 in the Judicial Duty List for the making of orders and directions including directions as to the filing of documents and an expedited hearing.

4. That the respondent attends this Court with the said child on the adjourned date.

5. That the applicant and the respondent have liberty to vary or set aside these orders on short notice.

6. That my reasons for judgment this day be transcribed and placed on the court file.

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 6385 of 2008

STATE CENTRAL AUTHORITY

Applicant

And

MS UURAINEN

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. I have an application in the judicial duty list that was filed on 14 July 2008, which is two days ago, by the State Central Authority on behalf of the father of a child, who was born in December 2003 and who, on any view of the material, is living with her mother, Ms Uurainen.

2. The application seems to have been issued within the time required and I am asked today based on an affidavit filed on 14 July by Ms P to make orders in the absence of the mother.  This seems to me to be a case in which, having regard to the nature of the orders sought, it is appropriate to deal with the matter without notice to the mother.

3. The case is brought under the Hague Convention provisions and the facts about the real position need to be canvassed in some further detail after the mother has had an opportunity to be heard. 

4. It seems that she was living with the child in Finland, and the father in 2007 was in Thailand.  The parties, somehow or other, seemed to have lost contact with one another, and the mother, according to the father, wrongfully removed the child to Australia from Finland. 

5. It is somewhat troubling that the father seemed to have made an arrangement that the mother was to travel to Thailand in June 2007.  It seems, on his material filed with the application, that he went to the trouble of spending money for tickets and living expenses, and the trip to Thailand by the mother did not eventuate. 

6. Nothing seems to have happened in some months, and then ultimately in January 2007, the application, or rather the request was made for the State Central Authority to act.  The affidavit sets out why there has been a delay between January and now for the matter to be brought before the court.  That is a matter that will no doubt become the subject of some discussion as the proceedings go on.

7. I've been asked today simply to make some orders which bring the matter to the mother's notice, and that she produce the child to the court with the case, back into the duty list next Friday week.  I propose to make those orders.

8. In the matter of the State Central Authority v Uurainen, I make orders in terms of the minute which has been handed to me, and I direct that that minute be emailed to my associate for the execution of a formal order.

9. I will also make an order that my reasons for judgment today be transcribed and be placed on the file.

I certify that the preceding Nine (9) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cronin

Associate: …

Date:  4 August 2008