VAZIRI & MADDISON

Case [2014] FamCA 897


FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VAZIRI & MADDISON [2014] FamCA 897
FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Interim Parenting – Application filed while children were visiting Australia on holiday – where children ordinarily resident in New Zealand – best interests of child resident in another country
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 63, 67ZC, 68B
De L v  Director-General, New South Wales Department of Community Services (1996) 187 CLR 640
Pascarl & Oxley (2013) FLC 93-536
Zanda & Zanda [2014] FamCAFC 173
ZP v PS (1994) 181 CLR 639
APPLICANT: Mr Vaziri
RESPONDENT: Ms Maddison
FILE NUMBER: PAC 4807 of 2014
DATE DELIVERED: 21 October 2014
PLACE DELIVERED: Parramatta
PLACE HEARD: Parramatta
JUDGMENT OF: Hannam J
HEARING DATE: 20 October 2014

REPRESENTATION

SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANT: Mr Vaziri

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Ms Cantrall

Ms Boldiston of Bankstown Legal Aid

Orders

  1. That pursuant to s 67ZC of the Family Law Act 1975 the children of the relationship, namely:

    (a)       S; and

    (b)       T;

    born … December 2000 (“the children”) are to be returned to New Zealand.

  2. That by way of implementation of Order (1), the children’s names are to be removed from the Airport Watchlist in force at all points of arrival and departure in the Commonwealth of Australia forthwith.

  3. That the mother is to provide the following Undertaking to the Court:

    (a)That I will cooperate with the orderly conduct of the proceedings including returning to Australia with the children for the purposes of the preparation of a family report.

  1. That the father is to provide the following Undertaking to the Court:

    (a)That I will pay for the costs associated with the mother and the children’s return to Australia in the event that a family report is ordered

  2. Father’s application for Interim Orders is dismissed.

Notation

  1. The mother intends to take steps to commence family law proceedings in New Zealand (including attending to any necessary pre-action procedures) within 28 days of the date of these Orders.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Vaziri and Maddison 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 PARRAMATTA

FILE NUMBER: PAC 4807 of 2014

Mr Vaziri

Applicant

And

Ms Maddison

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

  1. S and T are twin girls who are almost 14.  They have been living in New Zealand for the last five years since their parents separated and for lengthy periods before that time with their mother.

  2. They came to Australia with their mother, approximately three weeks ago to spend some time with their father during the school holidays.  Without any prior notice the father cancelled the children’s return air tickets and their names have been placed on the airport watch list, which means that they cannot be removed from Australia.

  3. At around the same time as cancelling the air tickets, the father brought a parenting application, including seeking final orders that he and his wife exercise…

Continue reading VAZIRI & MADDISON

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
VAZIRI & MADDISON [2014] FamCA 897
Case
[2014] FamCA 897
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties to this proceeding were the mother and the father, who disputed the location of their children, S and T. The matter came before Hannam J in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The core of the dispute concerned the children's habitual residence and the appropriate jurisdiction for family law proceedings concerning them.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the children, who were born in Australia but had been residing in New Zealand with their mother, should be returned to New Zealand. This involved an assessment of the children's best interests and the application of relevant provisions of the *Family Law Act 1975*, specifically section 67ZC, which deals with the return of children to a contracting state under the Hague Convention. The court also considered the father's application for interim orders.

Hannam J ordered that the children be returned to New Zealand pursuant to section 67ZC of the *Family Law Act 1975*. This decision was made in light of the mother's intention to commence family law proceedings in New Zealand within 28 days of the court's orders. To facilitate the return, the court ordered the removal of the children's names from the Airport Watchlist. The mother was required to provide an undertaking to cooperate with proceedings, including returning to Australia for a family report if ordered, and the father undertook to cover the costs of the mother and children's return to Australia for such a report. The father's application for interim orders was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

That pursuant to s 67ZC of the Family Law Act 1975 the children of the relationship, namely:

(a) S; and

(b) T;

born … December 2000 (“the children”) are to be returned to New Zealand.

2.

That by way of implementation of Order (1), the children’s names are to be removed from the Airport Watchlist in force at all points of arrival and departure in the Commonwealth of Australia forthwith.

3.

That the mother is to provide the following Undertaking to the Court:

(a) That I will cooperate with the orderly conduct of the proceedings including returning to Australia with the children for the purposes of the preparation of a family report.

4.

That the father is to provide the following Undertaking to the Court:

(a) That I will pay for the costs associated with the mother and the children’s return to Australia in the event that a family report is ordered

5.

Father’s application for Interim Orders is dismissed.

Notation

6.

The mother intends to take steps to commence family law proceedings in New Zealand (including attending to any necessary pre-action procedures) within 28 days of the date of these Orders.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.