STATE CENTRAL AUTHORITY & JAZEER

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

STATE CENTRAL AUTHORITY & JAZEER [2015] FamCA 174

FAMILY LAW – HAGUE ABDUCTION PROCEEDINGS — possible resolution — State Central Authority consents to mother re-opening her case in opposition to mandatory return

APPLICANT: State Central Authority

RESPONDENT: Ms Jazeer

INTERVENOR:

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Ms Hams

FILE NUMBER: MLC 2389 of 2014

DATE DELIVERED: 25 February 2015

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Bennett J

HEARING DATE: 25 February 2015

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Ms Porritt

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Department of Human Services, Legal Services Branch

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Ms Harris appeared amicus curiae

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Glezer Lanteri & Associates

Orders

IT IS ORDERED THAT

1. By not later than 12.00 noon on 25 March 2015 the respondent mother file and serve any application to re-open her case together with any evidence in support.

2. This matter be adjourned to 26 March 2015 at 9.30 am.

3. There be liberty to the parties to seek an administrative adjournment by consent.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym State Central Authority & Jazeer 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 2384 of 2014

State Central Authority

Applicant

And

Ms Jazeer

Respondent

And

Independent Children’s Lawyer

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This matter comes before me having been adjourned from earlier this week, when I indicated that the respondent mother or other parties to the proceedings were to appear today to make further submissions in the proceedings.  I would consider making final orders without any further input by any party.  The proceedings are those instituted pursuant to reg 16 of the Family Law (Child Abduction Convention) Regulations 1986 (Cth), which imports into Australian law the 1980 Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.  These reasons should be read in conjunction with reasons which I delivered for the hearing before me on 29 August 2014. 

2. These reasons update what has happened in this case since 29 August 2014.  Most notably, B, born in 2007, who is the subject of the Hague Convention proceedings, has not yet been returned to New Zealand.

3. By way of summary, on 29 August 2014 the mother had discontinued her opposition to the return of the child to New Zealand and the parents had commenced to negotiate conditions of return.  The Hague return proceedings are prosecuted by the State Central Authority and not by the father.  Accordingly, when I refer to negotiations between the parents, that was negotiation by the independent children’s lawyer in contact with the father on the one hand and the mother on the other hand.  A condition to return was that the father would pay a certain sum of money to cover expenses of the wife and two children of the relationship (of which the child B is…