STATE CENTRAL AUTHORITY, SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES & NORMAN

[2012] FamCA 1105

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

STATE CENTRAL AUTHORITY, SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES & NORMAN [2012] FamCA 1105

FAMILY LAW – Ex parte orders

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: State Central Authority, Secretary to Department of Human Services

RESPONDENT: Ms Norman

FILE NUMBER: MLC 11382 of 2012

DATE DELIVERED: 13 December 2012

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Cronin J

HEARING DATE: 13 December 2012

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Ms Wilson

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Department of Human Services

Orders

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym SCA & Norman 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 11382 of 2012

State Central Authority Secretary to Department of Human Services

Applicant

And

Ms Norman

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an ex parte application brought on by the State Central Authority under the Child Abduction Convention Regulations 1986.  The mother has not been served but the case has been brought on urgently because it has transpired that she arrived in Australia in October and within days swore an affidavit for proceedings under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) in the Federal Magistrates Court. They were before Riethmuller FM who made an ex parte Airport Watch order against the father.

2. The application for parenting orders by the mother is returnable in the Federal Magistrates’ Court on 19 December 2012 again before Riethmuller FM. By virtue of the application being lodged today, regulation 19 of the relevant regulations precludes a court making orders under the Family Law Act save for interim arrangements. I propose to bring the proceeding under the Convention Regulations back before me on the same day as those proceedings.

3. Although the State Central Authority is not a party to those proceedings, it will be abundantly clear that this is the appropriate forum for the matter to be determined.  If the mother resists a course to have the matter brought here, this court has power to direct her to seek the transfer on the basis that at this stage, this court does not have an uplift power.

4. Having regard to the evidence that I have read in the affidavit of Ms B, this is a case where there is sufficient concern to make orders on an ex parte basis even though the mother has an address for service.  It is appropriate that this court act promptly as is required under the regulations. 

5. Accordingly I will make orders as I have indicated. 

I certify that the preceding five (5) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cronin delivered on 13 December 2012.

Associate:  Elizabeth Hore

Date:  7 January 2013