SWAN & SIVANA

This matter concerned an application by Ms Swan for a recovery order in respect of her child, X, born in 2016. The application was made ex parte, meaning the father, Mr Sivana, was not present or represented. The court was asked to determine whether to grant the recovery order and make interim parenting orders.

The legal issues before the court were whether to issue a recovery order under section 67Q of the *Family Law Act 1975* and, in doing so, what interim orders regarding the child's living arrangements and time with each parent were in the child's best interests. The court was required to consider the primary and additional considerations outlined in section 60CC of the Act when determining the child's best interests.

Foster J reasoned that the primary considerations under section 60CC(2) were paramount, particularly the need to protect the child from harm, to which greater weight must be given. The court considered the various additional considerations in section 60CC(3), including the benefit of a meaningful relationship with both parents, the need to protect the child from harm, the child's views, the nature of the relationship with each parent, and the capacity of each parent to provide for the child's needs. Based on the information before the court on an ex parte basis, Foster J determined that a recovery order was necessary and that it was in the child's best interests, pending further order, for the child to live with the mother and spend no time with the father.

The court ordered that a recovery order issue, directing law enforcement officers to find and recover the child and return the child to the mother or her nominee. Interim orders were made that the child live with the mother and spend no time with the father, pending further order. The father was granted liberty to apply on short notice in relation to these ex parte orders.