Family Court of Australia Full Court
Arthur & Secretary, Department of Family & Community Services and Anor  FamCAFC 111 (29 June 2017)
Child abduction – Hague convention – wrongful removal – where the primary judge ordered the return of the child to New Zealand subject to conditions – where the mother appealed the return order – whether the primary judge erred in finding that the father had and was exercising rights of custody at the time of the child’s removal – whether the primary judge erred in finding there was no grave risk that return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation – whether the primary judge erred in finding that the father had not consented to the relocation of the child to Australia — where the Full Court found no merit in any ground of appeal – appeal dismissed.
Child abduction – Hague convention – conditions to return – where the primary judge imposed conditions on the return of the child – where the father appealed certain conditions on the basis that he could not fulfil them – where a failure to fulfil the conditions would lead to the child not being returned to the country of habitual residence – where the Full Court held that the primary judge erred in failing to consider the father’s capacity to satisfy the conditions – appeal allowed – particular conditions set aside.
Family Court of Australia
Department of Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services & Hughes  FamCA 509 (18 July 2017)
Child abduction – Hague Convention – application for the return of a nearly 16 year old child to Argentina – where the respondent brought the child to Australia pursuant to an order made by a court in Argentina that he be able to do so between 23 July 2015 and 28 December 2015
Child abduction – whether the child objects to being returned to Argentina – whether the child’s objection shows a strength of feeling beyond the mere expression of a preference or of ordinary wishes – whether the child is settled in Australia – whether, pursuant to Regulation 15(1)(a), the court has a discretion – whether the discretion ought be exercised in favour of a return order.
Federal Circuit Court of Australia
Babic & Takala  FCCA 1631 (14 July 2017)
Parenting – where mother sought an order restraining father from facilitating time with maternal grandparents – where mother is in conflict with the father and maternal grandparents – where mother perceived father’s involvement of maternal grandparents as controlling – where family consultant indicated it would be preferable for the mother to facilitate time with her parents – where conflict remained unabated – injunction order made pursuant to s68b to provide mother and maternal grandparents an opportunity to engage in family therapy to resolve their differences – injunction limited to closed period to enable the mother and her parents to re-establish their relationship – injunction determined to be appropriate to the children’s welfare and in their best interests long term.