ZEGNA & ZEGNA

In ZEGNA & ZEGNA, Watts J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the father for parenting orders concerning a child habitually resident overseas. The core of the dispute revolved around the court's jurisdiction to make such orders under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, as implemented by the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth).

The primary legal issue before the court was the interpretation of section 111CD(1)(c)(v) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), which permits the court to exercise jurisdiction for a Commonwealth personal protection measure concerning a child habitually resident in a Convention country if the court is exercising jurisdiction in proceedings concerning the divorce or separation of the child's parents. Crucially, section 111CD(3)(e) further stipulates that such jurisdiction can only be exercised if the proceedings for divorce or separation have not been finalised. The court had to determine the scope of "proceedings concerning the divorce or separation of the child’s parents."

Watts J adopted the broader interpretation of section 111CD(1)(c)(v) as articulated by Justice Tree in *Duckworth & Jamison* [2014] FamCA 308. This interpretation holds that the phrase "proceedings concerning the divorce or separation" is not limited to the formal legal acts of divorce or separation but encompasses the entire process by which a court addresses all issues arising from the breakdown of a marriage or relationship. This includes ancillary matters such as property division and parenting arrangements, reflecting the intended broad application of the Child Protection Convention to all proceedings of a matrimonial character arising from the termination of a relationship.

Consequently, the father's application for parenting orders was dismissed.