Wing and Lor

In *Wing & Lor*, the Family Court of Australia considered an application by a paternal grandmother seeking permission for her nine-year-old grandson, N, to travel to City A for a holiday. The child's father resides in City A and has been incarcerated in Country B for approximately two years. The child's mother opposed the application, expressing a significant fear that N would not be returned to Australia and would instead be taken to Country B, which is not a signatory to the Hague Convention. The mother also indicated that she would face grave danger if she returned to City A or Country B.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether it was in the child's best interests to permit him to travel overseas with his paternal grandmother, given the mother's concerns about the risk of abduction to Country B and the father's uncertain status and past fraudulent activities. The Court was required to balance the benefit of N re-establishing his relationship with his father and extended family in City A against the potential risks of harm to the child.

Justice Burr reasoned that while the child's relationship with his father could only be maintained through such travel, the risks associated with the proposed trip significantly outweighed the benefits. The Court noted the father's lack of participation in the proceedings and his inability to provide assurances. Furthermore, the fact that Country B is not a signatory to the Hague Convention, coupled with concerns about the child's standing in Country B due to fraudulent documentation, heightened the risk of abduction. The mother's inability to travel to City A or Country B due to her own safety concerns also meant that the father could not visit Australia.

Consequently, the Court dismissed the paternal grandmother's application. Justice Burr concluded that exposing the child to a foreign regime and potentially removing him from his mother's care presented a greater psychological harm than the benefit of a short holiday, deeming the application premature. The Court also noted that extended family members could potentially travel to Australia to see the child.