Te Mata and Butler

In the matter of *Te Mata and Butler*, Bennett J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application concerning parenting orders for two children, B and C. The proceedings arose in circumstances where the father sought leave to make oral applications for agreed parenting orders, following a determination on a return application under the Family Law (Child Abduction Convention) Regulations 1986. The court also dispensed with the payment of fees and the filing of documents.

The court was required to determine the terms of parenting orders that would govern the children's living arrangements and contact with their mother. These included orders regarding where the children would live, the nature and frequency of communication between the mother and children, and arrangements for the children to spend time with the mother in New Zealand. The court also had to address the financial responsibilities for travel costs associated with these arrangements and the process for obtaining reciprocal orders in New Zealand.

By consent of the parties, the court ordered that the children live with the father. The mother was granted specified Skype and telephone contact three times per week. The father was directed to take the children to New Zealand for a period of not less than one week, commencing around 21 May 2016, for time with the mother, with shared responsibility for airfares. Provisions were also made for an earlier visit to New Zealand if the maternal grandfather's health deteriorated, with specific conditions regarding the father's facilitation and the mother's confirmation of the grandfather's willingness to spend time with the children. The court further ordered that both parents take all necessary steps to obtain complimentary and enforceable orders in New Zealand, with the father responsible for the filing fee there. Liberty to apply on short notice was granted in the event of alleged non-compliance. The father's oral application was otherwise dismissed, as were all extant applications, and the matter was removed from the pending cases list. Reasons for the decision were to be transcribed and placed on the court file.