STATE CENTRAL AUTHORITY & STEVENS

[2013] FamCA 1048

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

STATE CENTRAL AUTHORITY & STEVENS [2013] FamCA 1048

FAMILY LAW – CHILD ABDUCTION CONVENTION – PROCEDURE

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Family Law (Child Abduction Convention) Regulations 1986

APPLICANT: State Central Authority

RESPONDENT: Ms Stevens

FILE NUMBER: MLC 9368 of 2013

DATE DELIVERED: 31 October 2013

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Cronin J

HEARING DATE: 31 October 2013

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Ms Accornero

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Department of Human Services

THE RESPONDENT: No Appearance

Orders

1. THAT leave is granted to the applicant to proceed ex parte with orders in terms of paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) of the application filed on 29 October 2013.

2. THAT the application be adjourned for further hearing on 13 November 2013 at 10.00am before the Honourable Justice Johns.

3. THAT the applicant effect service of the application and this Order on the respondent mother as soon as practicable.

4. THAT in the event that the respondent mother has been served with the application by the adjourned date:

   (a)she attend Court personally on 13 November 2013 at 10 am and remain at Court pending further order of the Court; and

   (b)file and serve a Notice of Address for Service.

5. THAT until further order the respondent mother, her servants or agents be restrained by injunction from causing or permitting or suffering the child B born … 2012:

   (a)to be removed from the Commonwealth of Australia, and in this regard all officers of the Australian Federal Police be directed to enforce, if required, the provisions of such order;

   (b)to be removed from the State of Victoria; or

   (c)to reside at any address other than their present residential address or any other residence at which the applicant has agreed that the child may reside.

6. THAT the Australian Federal Police place the name of the child on the Airport Watch List in force at all points of arrival and departure in the Commonwealth of Australia and maintain the child’s name on the Airport Watch List until further order of the Court.

7. THAT the respondent mother, 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 child or upon which the child appears and be restrained from applying for any further or other passports for the child pending further orders of this Court.

8. THAT a sealed copy of these Orders be provided forthwith to the Marshal of the Family Court of Australia, the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police and the Secretary of the Commonwealth Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

9. That there be liberty to apply.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym State Central Authority & Stevens 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 9368 of 2013

STATE CENTRAL AUTHORITY

Applicant

And

Ms Stevens

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an ex parte application brought under the Child Abduction Convention Regulations 1986, by the State Central Authority, in its capacity as the Secretary of the Department of Human Services.  This case concerns a child, B.  The facts upon which the application is made are that the child is now not quite two years of age and that in July this year, the mother told the father of the child that she intended to live in Australia and it was agreed that the child would remain with her father in New Zealand, so that that move could take place.

2. In August 2013, the child was in the care of the paternal grandmother when the mother arranged to see her and collected both the child and her belongings.  On the 29^th of August 2013, the requesting father became aware that the mother had purchased tickets to Australia for the child and she then was told by the father that he did not agree to the child moving to Australia.

3. Sensibly, the father went to the courts in New Zealand to obtain injunctions to prevent the child being removed.  Unfortunately, the order which seems to have been made, was not properly registered with the Interpol resources and as a consequence, the child came with her mother to Australia on 7 September 2013.  I am advised this morning by the solicitor for the applicant, that there is some uncertainty as to where the mother currently is, but there is a telephone number that will be pursued and it may be possible on the next occasion that an application will need to be made for information orders.

4. At this stage, the application may proceed, at least, for interlocutory orders on an ex parte basis, because the mother created the situation of the father not knowing that she was coming to Australia with the child and as she has not provided him with the location of her current residence, I can draw an inference that she is not terribly keen to let him know where the child is.

5. On that basis, I see no prejudice to her to proceed with the matter without notice today. 

I certify that the preceding Five (5) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cronin delivered on 31 October 2013.

Associate: 

Date:  22 January 2014