State Central Authority & Brume (No 2)

In the matter of *State Central Authority & Brume (No 2)*, Bennett J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application concerning the alleged wrongful retention of a child, N, born in March 2008. The proceedings involved the father of N's half-sibling, J, born in April 2001, who had filed proceedings in Australia. The mother was the primary caregiver of both children. A prior agreement had been made in Australia concerning the mother's return to Australia with her elder child, J, from a previous relationship. The child N was born in the Netherlands after this agreement was made.

The court was required to determine whether the retention of child N in Australia by the mother was wrongful within the meaning of Regulation 16(1A) of the *Family Law (Child Abduction Convention) Regulations 1986*. Additionally, the court considered whether exceptional circumstances justified the appointment of an independent children's lawyer.

Bennett J found that the retention of child N in Australia was wrongful under the Convention. The court reasoned that the prior agreement made in Australia regarding the mother's return with her elder child, J, was a significant factor. The court adjourned the balance of the proceedings, including any consideration of exceptions to mandatory return, to await the determination of parenting proceedings concerning child J. This approach aimed to ensure that the welfare of both children was appropriately addressed within the broader family law context.

The court ordered that the retention of child N in Australia was wrongful within the meaning of Regulation 16(1A). The proceedings concerning N were adjourned *sine die* to follow the determination of the parenting proceedings for child J, or further order. Existing orders securing N's whereabouts and requesting the appointment of an independent children's lawyer were continued in full force and effect.