Wafula and Batley (No 3)

In the matter of *Wafula and Batley (No 3)*, Justice Macmillan of the Family Court of Australia considered an urgent application concerning the interim care and safety of a child, referred to as X. The dispute arose in circumstances where the mother had failed to attend court, and there was evidence suggesting a risk of impulsive action or absconding with the child by the mother, necessitating protection from her potential reaction to the child being removed from her care or spending unsupervised time with the father.

The court was required to determine whether to issue a recovery order for the child, suspend previous parenting orders, and make interim orders regarding the child's living arrangements and the mother's proximity to the father and child. The central legal issue was the paramount consideration of the child's best interests in an urgent interim context, particularly where there was a perceived risk to the child's safety and a need to ensure the continuation of the trial proceedings.

Justice Macmillan reasoned that the urgent need to secure the short-term safety of the child pending the final hearing justified the making of a recovery order. Applying the principles of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), specifically section 67U, the court found it essential to protect the child from potential harm and to facilitate the continuation of the trial. The court ordered the suspension of all previous parenting orders, that the child live with the father until further order, and issued a recovery order authorising law enforcement to find and deliver the child to the father or a designated court facility. Additionally, the mother was restrained from attending within 500 metres of the father's home and from being within 500 metres of the father or the child, with a provision allowing for the mother or her family to accompany the child if practicable during the handover process.