State Central Authority and Wattey

The State Central Authority applied to the Supreme Court of New South Wales for an order that a child be returned to the United States of America under the *Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and Other Related Matters* (the Hague Convention). The application was brought against Ms Wattey, the child's mother, who had brought the child to Australia. Bennett J heard the application.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the child had been habitually resident in the United States immediately prior to being brought to Australia, a prerequisite for the application of the Hague Convention. The Court also considered whether Ms Wattey had established a defence to the return order, specifically whether her objection to the child's return was well-founded under Article 13 of the Hague Convention, or whether the child had become settled in Australia under Article 12.

Bennett J dismissed the application, finding that the child had not been habitually resident in the United States. Her Honour reasoned that the evidence did not establish that the child had developed a settled routine or integration into the community in the United States, which are key indicators of habitual residence. Consequently, the Hague Convention did not apply, and the Court lacked jurisdiction to order the child's return. The Court did not need to consider the defences under Articles 12 or 13 as the threshold jurisdictional requirement of habitual residence was not met.