Family Court of Australia emblem
2: Department of Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services & Garning (Discharge application) [2012] FamCA 839 | October 6, 2012
Court or Tribunal: 
Catchwords: Child Abduction, Enforcement of Orders, Hague Convention, Relocation
Judges:  Forrest J


Background: Four girls, aged between 9 and 14, moved to Australia with their mother in 2010. The mother got the father's consent for the trip by claiming that it was just a holiday. Since arriving she however has stated that she and the children wished to stay in Australia permanently. Their Italian father has been embroiled in a custody battle with the Sunshine Coast-based mother since finding out that the mother deceived him as to the nature of the trip. The girls' mother exercised a last ditch attempt to have a Family Court order the girls go back to Italy to face custody proceedings overturned. 
 
  [Legal Issue]The initial order to return the girls to Italy was made in line with the Hague Convention, which relates to international child abduction. In the final proceedings before the Family Court, counsel for the Department of Community Services and Child Safety argued the order should not be overturned in fairness to every other family who had to abide by the Hague Convention. The mother's legal team claimed the girls did not want to go back to Italy and their views had not properly been ascertained in an interview with a family court consultant.   [Court Orders]Justice Colin Forrest dismissed the mother's application to have an order the girls return to Italy discharged. Justice Forrest ordered the girls be returned to the care of the Community Services Department and an official accompany the girls back to Italy. Justice Forest also ordered the Italian father make an undertaking to withdraw any criminal complaints made in Italy against the mother and not make one in the future.      


[  ] Download Decision

Full Court of the Family Court of Australia emblem
6: Simpson & Brockmann [2010] FamCAFC 37 | March 3, 2010
Court or Tribunal: 
Catchwords: Appeal, Biological Mother, Birth Mother, Contravention, Meaningful Relationship, Non-Parent, Parentage, Parental, Parental Rights, Parenting Orders, Relocation, Same Sex Parents, Same Sex Relationship, Step Parent
Judges:  Coleman JJarrett FMMay JWarnick J


Background: Two women had lived in an intimate relationship for 9 years and two children were born during this time using IVF, with each woman being the biological parent of one child (same sex relationship). One woman then left the relationship taking her birth child with her. Orders were issued for the two children to spend significant time with the other woman and to see their sibling. One woman then relocated further away making the order impractical and the other woman appealed arguing that the first woman was not facilitating an ongoing meaningful relationship between her and the child whom she considered that she had parented.  
 
  [Legal Issue]Each woman claimed to be a parent of the other’s child, although the trial judge found to the contrary as only a biological parent or an adoptive parent meets the legal definition of being a parent. Both women submitted that each child regarded each of the women as a mother. The Appeal Court found that if a child is born by an artificial conception procedure while the woman is married to a man and the procedure is carried out with the joint consent of both adults, then the child is their child for the purposes of the Act, or both the woman and man are parents of the child. The Appeal Court supported the ruling by the trial judge that the women were not parents of the child whom they did not give birth to (non-parent). The appeal was dismissed.   [Court Orders]The Appeal Court supported the ruling by the trial judge that the women were not parents of the child whom they did not give birth to (non-parent). The appeal was dismissed.     


[  ] Download Decision