CASE

Download full text EN

Case Name

WALPOLE & SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITIES AND JUSTICE [2020] FamCAFC 65

INCADAT reference

HC/E/AU 1456

Court

Country

AUSTRALIA

Name

Family Court of Australia

Level

Appellate Court

Judge(s)

Ryan, Aldridge & Watts JJ

States involved

Requesting State

NEW ZEALAND

Requested State

AUSTRALIA

Decision

Date

25 March 2020

Status

Final

Grounds

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)

Order

Appeal allowed, return refused

HC article(s) Considered

13(1)(b)

HC article(s) Relied Upon

13(1)(b)

Other provisions

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)

Authorities | Cases referred to

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

Published in

-

SYNOPSIS

Synopsis available in EN

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.

SUMMARY

No summary available