Zammitt & Lennon (No. 3)

In *Zammitt & Lennon (No. 3)*, Dawe J of the Family Court of Australia considered an urgent application by the father seeking the delivery up of the child and a recovery order. This application followed interim consent orders recently made by the Court, which stipulated that the mother was to return the child to the father. The central dispute concerned the welfare of the child and the mother's compliance with the existing orders.

The Court was required to determine whether to issue a recovery order pursuant to s 67Q of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) and, if so, under what conditions. A further issue was whether it was in the child's best interests for the police to be required to enforce such an order, and whether the mother should be afforded an opportunity to comply with the existing order before enforcement steps were taken. The Court also considered whether to grant an injunction restraining the mother from removing the child from the father's care.

Dawe J reasoned that while a recovery order was necessary given the circumstances, it was not in the child's best interests for immediate police enforcement. The Court applied the principles of child welfare and the need for orders to be practically enforceable. Consequently, the Court ordered the mother to return the child to the father by 4.00 pm on the day of the hearing. A recovery order was issued, authorising law enforcement to recover the child and deliver him to the father, but with a proviso that these steps were not to be taken until after 4.00 pm that day, allowing the mother an opportunity to comply voluntarily. The mother was also restrained by injunction from removing the child from the father's care until further order, and a prior order was suspended.