HC/E/AU 1456
AUSTRALIA
Family Court of Australia
Appellate Court
Ryan, Aldridge & Watts JJ
NEW ZEALAND
AUSTRALIA
25 March 2020
Final
Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)
Appeal allowed, return refused
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 10
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 68L(3) and s 93A(2)
Family Law (Child Abduction) Regulations 1986 (Cth) reg 14
16(3) Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) r 8.02(5)
Australian Law Reform Commission, Equality before the Law: Justice for Women Report No. 69 (1994)
Perez-Vera, Elisa, Explanatory Report on the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention (Hague Conference on Private International Law, 1982)
Agee v Agee (2000) FLC 93-055; [2000] FamCA 1251
De L v Director General NSW Dept of Community Services (1996) CLR 640; [1996] HCA 5
DP v Commonwealth Central Authority (2001) 206 CLR 401; [2001] HCA 39 Gsponer v Director-General, Department of Community Services (VIC) (1989) FLC 92-001; [1988] FamCA 21
Harris v Harris (2010) FLC 93-454; [2010] FamCAFC 221
In Re E (Children) (Abduction: Custody Appeal) [2011] 4 All ER 517
Metwally v University of Wollongong (1985) 60 ALR 68; [1985] HCA 28
State Central Authority v M [2003] FamCA 1128
TB v JB (Abduction: grave risk of harm) [2001] 2 FLR 515
Water Conservation and Irrigation Commission (NSW) v Browning (1947) 74 CLR 492; [1947] HCA 21
Wolford & Attorney-General’s Department (Cth) [2014] FamCAFC 197
-
Two children allegedly wrongfully removed at ages 2 and 3 – Father national of New Zealand – Mother national of Australia – Mother the primary carer of the children – Children lived in New Zealand until May 2019 – Appeal allowed and return refused – Main issues: Article 13(1)(b) - Though New Zealand has sophisticated systems in place to protect victims of family violence, it was established that the children’s parents had persistently thwarted attempts by similar agencies in Australia to keep the mother and children safe. There was no evidence which suggests that any conditions would be effective ; COVID-19 – despite the fact travel bans were in place between Australia and New Zealand, as the case was based on a request by New Zealand to return the children, the court proceeded on the basis that the children and the mother were still able to leave Australia and enter New Zealand. If the court had decided to order a return to New Zealand they would have required further submissions concerning the effect on the children and the mother in the present crisis.