HC/E/AU 1357
AUSTRALIA
Family Court of Australia
Appellate Court
Bryant CJ, Thackray & Austin JJ
NEW ZEALAND
AUSTRALIA
29 June 2017
Other
Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Issues Relating to Return
Appeal allowed, return ordered subject to undertakings
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), New Zealand Care of Children Act 2004, Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981
A v Central Authority for New Zealand [1996] 2 NZFLR 517; Colak & Viduka (2016) FLC 93-707; C v C (Minor: Abduction: Rights of Custody Abroad) [1989] WLR 654 [INCADAT refrence HC/E/UKe 34]; De L v Director-General, New South Wales Department of Community Service (1996) 187 CLR 640; Director General, Department of Community Services v Crowe (1996) FLC 92-717; DP v Commonwealth Central Authority [2001] HCA 39, (2001) 180 ALR 402 [INCADAT reference HC/E/AU 346]; JLM v Director-General New South Wales; Department of Community Services (2001) 206 CLR 401; Friedrich v Friedrich, 983 F 2d 1396 (6th Cir, 1993) [INCADAT reference HC/E/USf 142] ; Harris & Harris (2010) FLC 93-454; House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; In re D (A Child) (Abduction: Rights of Custody) [2007] 1 AC 619; Makita (Aust) Pty Ltd v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705; McOwan v McOwan (1994) FLC 92-451 [INCADAT Reference HC/E/AU 253]; Police Commissioner of South Australia v Temple (1993) FLC 92-365; Re E (Children) [2012] 2 FLR 758; Re F (A Minor) (Child Abduction) [1992] 1 FLR 548 [INCADAT Reference HC/E/UKe 40]; Re J (A Child) (1996 Hague Convention: Cases of Urgency) [2015] UKSC 70; Re M (Abduction: Undertakings) [1995] 1 FLR 1021 [INCADAT Reference HC/E/UKe 20]; Smith v Adam [2007] NZFLR 447; Soysa & Commissioner of Police [2011] FamCAFC 39; Thomson v Thomson [1994] SCR 551 [INACDAT Reference HC/E/CA 11]; Wolford & Attorney-General’s Department (Cth) [2014] FamCAFC 197
-
1 child wrongfully removed at age 6 – Unmarried parents – The mother had day-to-day care of the child and the father had supervised contact – Child lived in New Zealand until May 2016 – Application for return heard at first instance in December 2016 – First appeal: application dismissed – Second appeal: return ordered – Main issues: rights of custody, Art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception, undertakings / conditions for return – The finding that there is no ”grave risk” within the meaning of Article 13(1)(b) “while at the same time foreshadowing a preparedness to impose conditions on the order for return” can be consistent - fulfilment of conditions prior to the child’s return should be feasible and cannot place the taking parent in a better situation than she was before the removal
Un enfant déplacé illicitement à l’âge de 6 ans – Parents non mariés – Garde de l’enfant accordée a la mère et droit de contacts supervisés accordé au père – Enfant résident en Nouvelle-Zélande jusqu’en mai 2016 – Demande de retour déposée en juin 2016 – Premier appel : recours rejeté – Second appel : retour ordonné – Principaux enjeux : droit de garde, exception de grave risque prévue à l’art. 13(1)(b), conditions au retour – il n’est pas incohérent de déclarer qu’il n’existe pas de « risque grave » au sens de l’art. 13(1)(b) « tout en préfigurant des conditions obligatoires au retour de l’enfant » – Le respect des conditions au retour de l’enfant doit être possible et ne peut placer le parent l’ayant emmené dans une meilleure situation que celle dans laquelle il se trouvait avant le déplacement