Coman & Coman [2025] FedCFamC1F 581

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

1. Pursuant to s 67Q of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) -

TO: The Marshal of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia

All Officers of the State and Territory Police Forces of Australia

1. You are authorised and directed with such assistance as you require, and if necessary by force, to find and recover the children W born 2008 (male).
2. You are required to deliver the said children to the APPLICANT FATHER at a place nominated by the Officer who recovers the child pursuant to this Order.
3. The Marshal, all Officers of the Australian Federal Police and all Officers of the State and Territory Police Forces of Australia be permitted to provide to the applicant any address provided under a location order if necessary to enable the applicant to collect the children.
4. At first instance the applicant is to pay any associated travel costs of the children's return.
5. For the purposes of finding and recovering the said child you are authorised and directed, with such assistance as you require, and if necessary by force to stop and search any vehicle, vessel or aircraft and to enter and search any premises or place in which there is, at any time, reasonable cause to believe that the said child may be found.
6. If the respondent attempts to remove the said child from the applicant pursuant to orders made herein on 4 September 2025 she may be arrested without a warrant.
7. This order remains in force for a period of twelve months.

1. That until further order the mother MS COMAN born 1977, her servants and/or agents be and are hereby restrained by injunction, and irrespective of authenticated consent as contemplated in Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975, from removing or attempting to remove or causing or permitting the removal of the child W born 2008 from the Commonwealth of Australia for a period of 12 months.
2. W born on 2008 is hereby restrained from leaving the Commonwealth of Australia.
3. IT IS REQUESTED that the Australian Federal Police give effect to this order by placing the names of the said children on the Family Law Watchlist in force at all points of arrival and departure in the Commonwealth of Australia and maintain the children's names on the Watchlist for the said period, or until the Court orders its removal.
4. The Marshall and all officers of the Australian Federal Police and of the police forces of the various States and Territories are requested and empowered to take all necessary steps to give effect to these orders.

1. Section 114Q of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) provides that it is an offence punishable by imprisonment for up to one year to communicate to the public any account of family law proceedings which identifies the parties, witnesses or other people concerned with the proceedings, unless specifically authorised by the court.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court's records.

Note: This copy of the Court's Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym Coman & Coman has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

1. On 26 August 2025 I handed down reasons for judgment in the parenting proceeding[1] in which orders were made for the four children to live with the father and for them to have no time with the mother for several months.
2. The orders I pronounced were executed with surprising ease. Three out of the four children went into the father's care. The eldest did not. The father elected not to escalate the situation at the time and instead availed himself of the services of professionals to assist in attempting to persuade the eldest child, W, to live with the father. Those attempts have since turned out to be unsuccessful.
3. Today, at the request of the father, an urgent ex parte application was sought for the issue of a recovery order in respect of the eldest child, W. The circumstances underpinning that application were set out in the affidavit of the father, an unsworn draft of which was supplied by email to my chambers, it having been sealed by the court's registry a little after midday on 4 September 2025. Today the affidavit was sworn as being correct by the father. I directed that the urgent ex parte application for the issue of the recovery order in respect of W be returnable today at 3 pm, which was done.
4. Several matters of importance relevant to this ex parte application were the subject of the father's affidavit. They were as follows -

(a) on the day of the delivery of reasons for judgment in the parenting proceeding, 26 August 2025, the mother was required to bring all four children to court;

(b) she failed to bring W to court on 26 August 2025;

(c) she brought the other three children to court on 26 August 2025;

(d) she said she was unable to get W to court as her reason for failing to get him to court;

(e) the three children delivered to the father's care on 26 August 2025 are progressing well in his care;

(f) the mother has since failed to facilitate W's transition to the father's care;

(g) on 26 August 2025 the ICL provided to the father the bags prepared for the children by the mother and that on inspecting the bags, the father discovered a GPS tracking device in each bag together with lengthy handwritten notes addressed to the children;

(h) W's psychologist, Ms MM, has informed the father, based on information to which Ms MM is privy, that the mother will not facilitate W's coming into the father's care because W hates the father;

(i) according to Ms MM, the mother has stated that W will turn 18 soon and that she (the mother) will simply "wait out" the orders;

(j) on 2 September 2025 the father sent a message to the mother on a particular social media application encouraging cooperative conduct to gently facilitate W's changeover into the father's care, to which the mother did not reply;

(k) on 3 September 2025 the father's solicitors wrote to the mother's solicitors informing them that a recovery application would be brought if W were not delivered into the father's care by 3.00pm on 3 September 2025;

(l) the mother failed to deliver W into the father's care by 3.00pm on 3 September 2025;

(m) at nearly 2.30 pm on 3 September, the mother terminated her retainer of her solicitors, a matter feared by the father as representing a deliberate attempt to delay service of the father's application;

(n) the mother has indicated that W will turn 18 shortly; and

(o) the father has no option but to apply to the court for relief.

1. The father deposed to the risk to Win his remaining in the mother's care. The father listed those risk items to be the following -

(a) W has autism and selective mutism;

(b) he has not washed for two years nor changed his clothing;

(c) W may be self-harming;

(d) he has not attended school for a prolonged period;

(e) his occupational therapist has withdrawn;

(f) the mother has failed to insist upon W's participation in medical appointments;

(g) W is already socially isolated and his current circumstances are exacerbating his isolation;

(h) the mother calls the father a narcissist, which is not assisting;

(i) on 2 September 2025 the father received a call from Child and Youth Mental Health Service to the effect that that body will soon close its file on W with the consequence that W will face delays in addressing his mental health treatment; and

(j) W's phone remains switched off, with the consequence that the order sought by the father should be made.

1. The mother did not file material in opposition to the father's application. She addressed me today.
2. The circumstances disclosed in the father's affidavit filed in support of this urgent ex parte application revealed a justifiable concern about the welfare and wellbeing of W. He remains at risk. He has not been delivered into the father's care as was ordered by me on 26 August 2025. The same matters that caused me concern during the trial still remain of concern to me, especially W's sense of isolation, his risk of self-harm, his lack of cleanliness and lack of personal hygiene and his absence from school. Equally concerning is -

(a) the fact that the mother has revealed that she will wait for a small number of weeks to elapse before W turns 18 and therefore is not amenable to the orders of this Court;

(b) the mother has not assisted in W's delivery to the father's care; and

(c) the children's bags were carrying GPS tracking devices.

1. Urgent steps need to be taken to recover W into the care of the father. A recovery order must be made, which I now make. To the extent that flight is a risk I make an airport watch-list order as well.
2. I do not accept the mother at her word when she says she is doing everything possible to comply with the orders made. I regard that as devoid of substance and devoid of merit. The mother must do as she has been ordered to do - in the interests of W.

I certify that the preceding nine (9) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the ex tempore reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Wilson.

[1] [2025] FedCFamC1F 581.