Vogel and Franks

The Family Court of Australia heard an application by the mother, Ms Vogel, seeking permission to take the child, B, on an overseas holiday to Country D. The father, Mr Franks, opposed this application. The mother proposed lodging a $50,000 bond as security for the child's return.

The Court was required to determine whether to grant the mother's application, considering the paramountcy of the child's best interests. This involved assessing the risk of the child not being returned to Australia, the adequacy of the proposed security, and the mother's past conduct in relation to international child abduction proceedings. The Court also considered the principles outlined in *Kuebler & Keubler* regarding applications for international travel with a child.

Justice Rees applied the principles from *Kuebler & Keubler*, noting that while the proposed trip was short and the mother's desire to visit family was accepted, the primary concern was the child's return to the jurisdiction. The Court found that the mother had a history of failing to comply with court orders for the child's return to Australia, including proceedings in Country D under the Hague Convention. Despite orders for the child's return, the mother repeatedly failed to comply, even relocating the child to evade authorities. Given the mother's lack of disclosure regarding her financial position, the Court could not be satisfied that the $50,000 bond was sufficient to mitigate the significant risk of her not returning the child.

The application was dismissed. The Court ordered that the child should not be removed from the jurisdiction until the substantive parenting proceedings were determined, to avoid rendering those proceedings nugatory.