CASE

Download full text EN

Case Name

Arthur & Secretary, Department of Family & Community Services and Anor [2017] FamCAFC 111, (2017) FLC 93-781

INCADAT reference

HC/E/AU 1357

Court

Country

AUSTRALIA

Name

Family Court of Australia

Level

Appellate Court

Judge(s)

Bryant CJ, Thackray & Austin JJ     

States involved

Requesting State

NEW ZEALAND

Requested State

AUSTRALIA

Decision

Date

29 June 2017

Status

Other

Grounds

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Issues Relating to Return

Order

Appeal allowed, return ordered subject to undertakings

HC article(s) Considered

3 5 7 12 13(1)(a) 13(1)(b)

HC article(s) Relied Upon

3 5 7 12 13(1)(b)

Other provisions

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), New Zealand Care of Children Act 2004, Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981  

Authorities | Cases referred to

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

Published in

-

SYNOPSIS

Synopsis available in EN | FR

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

SUMMARY

No summary available