Arthur & Secretary, Department of Family & Community Services and Anor [2017] FamCAFC 111, (2017) FLC 93-781
https://www.incadat.com/en/case/11
State Central Authority & Quang [2009] FamCA 1038
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FamCA/2009/1038.html
Fairfax v. Ireton [2009] 1 NZLR 540
L.K. v. Director-General Department of Community Services [2009] HCA 9, (2009) 253 ALR 202
https://www.incadat.com/en/case/975
Richards & Director-General, Department of Child Safety [2007] FamCA 65
Appeal dismissed and return order confirmed; whilst the children objected to a return the standard required under Article 13(2) had not been reached.
Family application 042273/99 DR. Z.M. v. R.M.P.
Compensation would be awarded to the applicant father to cover the cost of locating the child, hiring a lawyer in Israel and the lawyer’s fees. Compensation was not awarded for emotional distress because the damage was not sufficiently serious, bearing in mind that the child was returned.
In the Marriage of Regino and Regino v. The Director-General, Department of Families Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs Central Authority (1995) FLC 92-587, [1994] FamCA 147
Application dismissed; the retention was not wrongful as the father had consented to the relocation of mother and child to Australia.
Secretary, Attorney-General’s Department v. TS (2001) FLC 93-063, [2000] FamCA 1692, 27 Fam LR 376
Return refused; the removal was wrongful but the child was found to have become settled in his new environment.
Director-General Department of Families, Youth and Community Care and Hobbs, 24 September 1999, Family Court of Australia (Brisbane) [1999] FamCA 2059, (2000) FLC 93-007
Return ordered subject to undertakings; the removal of the child breached the father’s rights of custody and the standard of harm required under Article 13(1)(b) had not been established.
DP v. Commonwealth Central Authority; JLM v. Director-General NSW Department of Community Services [2001] HCA 39, (2001) 180 ALR 402
The High Court allowed the appeal in both cases. The cases were remitted to the Full Court of the Family Court for further consideration consistent with the reasons for judgment of the High Court.