Namita & Terah [2025] FedCFamC1F 817 (5 November 2025)

1. Pending the respondent mother's return to Australia, the applicant father have sole parental responsibility for decision making in relation to major long-term issues regarding the children's education, health, and their return to the Commonwealth of Australia.
2. Pending the respondent mother's return to the Commonwealth of Australia, the children live with the applicant father.
3. In the event that respondent mother returns to the Commonwealth of Australia, the children spend time with her in Melbourne as follows:

(a) each week from after school (or 4.00 pm if a non-school day) on Monday until after school (or 4.00 pm if a non-school day) on Thursday; and

(b) from 3.30 pm on Sunday 1 November 2025 to the commencement of school (or 4.00 pm if a non school day) Monday, and monthly thereafter.

1. Upon the children's return to the Commonwealth of Australia and until further order, the respondent mother and her servants and/or agents be and are restrained from removing or attempting to remove or causing or permitting the removal of the children X born in 2018 and Y born in 2020 from the Commonwealth of Australia without the authenticated written consent of the applicant father, or by Court order.
2. IT IS REQUESTED THAT the Australian Federal Police give effect to the preceding order by placing the names of the said children on the Watch List in force at all points of arrival and departure in the Commonwealth of Australia and maintain the children's name on the Watch List until further order.
3. Upon expiration of the period referred to in Order 8 hereof, and subject to any further order of a Court of competent jurisdiction, the Australian Federal Police will cause the removal of the children's name from the Watch List.
4. The Marshal of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia and all officers of the Australian Federal Police and of the Police Forces and Services of the various States and Territories of Australia are required and empowered to give effect to these Orders and to take all reasonable steps to restrain the respondent mother and her servants and/or agents from removing the children from the Commonwealth of Australia.

1. The applicant father's costs of and incidental to this application be reserved.

1. If after the expiration of the period set out in Order 8 above any parent seeks that the child/ren remain on the Airport Watch List for a period beyond the period specified that party must file and serve an application and an affidavit setting out the evidence which supports that application in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.
2. The applicant father is not seeking to take possession of the Suburb G property on 20 November 2025 and will allow the respondent mother to remain there free from rent for a further six months from 20 November 2025 during which period he will continue to meet all outgoings associated with the property (including gas, electricity, water, rates and insurances).

1. Pursuant to sections 62B and 65DA(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ("the Act"), the particulars of the obligations these orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these orders are set out in the Annexure and these particulars are included in these orders.

1. Section 114Q of the Act provides that it is an offence punishable by imprisonment for up to one year to communicate to the public an account of family law proceedings which identifies a party to the proceedings, a witness in the proceedings, a person related to, or associated with, a party to the proceedings, or a person who is, or alleged to be, in any other way concerned in the matter to which the proceedings relate, unless specifically authorised by the Court.
2. If in any proceedings there are allegations of family violence and the provisions of section 102NA of the Act apply (see attached Family Violence Information Sheet), any unrepresented party will not be permitted to personally cross-examine the other party/parties.
3. Affected unrepresented parties may apply to the Commonwealth Family Violence and Cross-Examination of Parties Scheme ("the Scheme") for representation but any such application must be made at least 12 weeks prior to the final hearing.
4. Further information about the legislation and the Scheme can be found at Part 4 of the attached Family Violence Information Sheet.
5. If section 102NA applies and a party becomes unrepresented after trial directions have been made, that party is required to promptly advise 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 has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

1. These are the settled reasons for judgment which were delivered ex-tempore 5 November 2025. The settled written reasons have been corrected from the transcript for clarity and grammar.
2. This is the father's application seeking orders in relation to the children of the parties, being seven-year-old X born in 2018, and five-year-old Y born in 2020 (collectively "the children").
3. The father has lived here in Australia since about 1997, having moved from Country H. The mother was born in the United Arab Emirates ("UAE"). She moved here in about March 2017, and both parents have become Australian citizens. The parents were married in City E in about 2014. They commenced living together in 2017 when the mother moved to Australia. X was born the following year. He is in grade 3 at J School, and Y is in prep at the same school. I understand that both children are in good health.
4. According to the parties' jointly filed divorce application, they separated on about 1 April 2022.
5. The father deposes the parents have shared the children's care since that time. He said there have also been periods where the children have been in his sole care for extended periods, when the mother has travelled overseas. There was evidence to that effect in the aide memoir was tendered on behalf of the father, setting out the mother's extensive travel outside Australia, taken from the subpoenaed material.
6. It is the father's assertion that the mother abducted and wrongfully removed the children from Australia, in October 2025. They are currently in the UAE with their mother. The father asserts he did not give the mother permission to take the children out of Australia. He says he did not provide his consent for the children's passports to be renewed. It is his case that the mother misled the Passports Office, leading them to believe that he had provided consent for the new passports to issue when he had not. He deposed that he did not sign passport applications, and says the Passport Office was provided with a false email address for him. The father raised his concerns about the falsification of his consent for the issuing of the children's new passports with the authorities and based on the father's assertions I understand they have cancelled the children's passports.
7. There was a letter tendered into evidence from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade ("DFAT") dated 21 October 2025, which set out that the department felt they "have reasonable grounds to suspect both fraud and dishonesty in the applications" for the passports and that "inquiries conducted by [the passport fraud and integrity section] indicate that the consent signatures on both applications, purporting to be those [of the father] are not his genuine signature".
8. The father today seeks orders that the children be immediately returned to Australia. He seeks sole decision-making responsibility for the children, and that they live with him in the event the mother does not also return. It is also his proposal that in the event the mother does return, the parties should resume the shared care arrangement that has been in place since they separated over three years ago. The father also seeks orders that there be an Airport Watch List order made in the event the children are returned to Australia. I understand the father has already obtained emergency documents which would enable the children to return to Australia, despite the passports having been cancelled.
9. Initially, the matter came before me on 27 October 2025. The mother did not appear that day. I adjourned the matter with orders that indicated the father could seek to proceed on an undefended basis at the next return, in the event the mother failed to attend. The matter was relisted before me on 31 October 2025. On that day, the mother attended electronically, and was represented. In fact both parents attended the Court via the virtual link, as they were both in the UAE. They have attended again today via virtual link, as they remain overseas.
10. At the hearing on 31 October 2025 the mother's lawyer, Ms Souki, attended. She advised that her client consented to the jurisdiction of this Court. I was also told that the mother intended to return the children to Australia, although she was unable to identify a timeframe in which that could occur. Ms Souki otherwise sought an adjournment, so that her client could prepare response material. I granted a short adjournment until today.
11. The mother now appears, represented by Ms Willard of counsel. As I said, the mother remains in the UAE and has attended electronically.
12. The mother has now filed a Response to Final Orders and an affidavit in support. Notwithstanding the statements that were made through her representative just days ago that the mother intended to return with the children to Australia, the mother has now sought interim orders pursuant to which she says the children should live with her in the UAE. She proposes the children have electronic communication with their father on a daily basis, and that if he is present in the UAE, which she says he is from time to time for work, he could have face-to-face time, supervised by her father.
13. In the mother's material, she denies that she took the children from Australia without the father's knowledge or consent. She asserts that he signed the children's passport applications, and she denies his allegations that she did anything to obtain them fraudulently.
14. As already observed, the father denies the mother's version of events and has provided some corroboration for his version.
15. I cannot resolve this factual dispute at this time. The mother will have an opportunity, no doubt, at a later date to explain the discrepancies in the father's email addresses and phone numbers that appear on the documents upon which she relies, and to explain the curious chronology regarding alleged conversations about travel and obtaining passports, which are somewhat at odds with the exchanges to which the father deposes.
16. Importantly, the mother confirmed in her affidavit material, that when she took the children from Australia, "the trip planned was temporary, with confirmed return tickets for [...] October 2025". Accordingly, even on the mother's evidence, if the father did consent to the travel, it was not for the purposes of the relocation as is now sought by the mother. Had that been the mother's disclosed intention it may well be that the father would not have agreed to the children being removed from the Commonwealth of Australia. On the mother's case, at the time she left Australia, her intention was to return the children in October 2025, being the date of the return tickets. She has failed to do so.
17. As already observed, no objection was made as to jurisdiction. That is a sensible concession, given that the matter falls squarely within s 69E(1)(b) and (c) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ("the Act"), and the children are quite clearly habitually resident in Australia.
18. In relation to parenting orders pursuant to s 60CC of the Act, the children's best interest must be the paramount consideration. That section sets out the matters that I must take into account in determining what orders are in the children's best safety. In summary, I must consider what arrangements will promote the safety of the children and persons charged with the children's care, any views expressed by the children, the needs of the children, the capacity of the parents to meet the children's needs, the benefit of the children having a relationship with their parents, and others significant to the children, if it is safe to do so, and anything else that is relevant. I must also consider whether there has been a history of family violence or abuse, and whether there has been any family violence order made in these proceedings.
19. It is also appropriate to note the observations of Justice Brown in Attwill & Marden [2018] FCCA 1401 where her Honour said:

...courts applying Part VII are discouraging of parents, who take unilateral actions in respect of arrangements for their children, except in circumstances of significant emergency.

...

1. This is particularly so in cases of relocation, which invariably have implications for both the quality and quantity of relationship the parent left behind can have with the children affected by the other parent's move.
2. The High Court has indicated that cases involving relocation require delicate and careful analysis of all the pros and cons, in respect of the move, from the individual perspectives of all concerned, including the children. For the reasons outlined already, such a degree of analysis is not possible at the interim stage.
3. In Morgan & Miles, which was a case which arose after the shared parental responsibility amendments were implemented, Boland J confirmed that the court should be reticent to determine issues of relocation at the interim stage. She said as follows:

"It is highly desirable that, except in cases of emergency, the arrangements which will be in the child's best interests should not be determined an abridged interim hearing, and these are the types of cases in which the child's present stability may be extremely relevant on an interim basis. It further appears to me that the comments of Warnick J in C and S remain apt and relevant to determination of these cases."

1. The comments, of Warnick J referred to, were as follows:

"In my view it is clear that the interests of any child or children, including the children here, are very much connected with any questions directly affecting those children, such as a re-location, being determined by a Court without the impediment of a situation of recent development, which situation significantly alters the relationship of the child or circumstances of the child with regard to one of its parents, from what it or they had been immediately beforehand."

1. I note further the observations of the now Deputy Chief Justice McClelland in Adamson & Adamson [2018] FamCA 523, where his Honour observed:
   1. As I will discuss, while the Act requires the focus of these proceedings to be on the best interests of the children, authority suggests that a relevant factor to also consider is that a parent should not make a unilateral decision to significantly change the children's circumstances in a situation where there is a dispute between the parties as to what parenting arrangements are in the long term best interests of the children.
2. I accept that the legislation has changed since those determinations were made, but the observations made by the court remain apposite and relevant to these proceedings.
3. This is an interim decision, accordingly, consistent with the provisions of s 69ZL of the Act, I will give my reasons in relation to the interim parenting orders in short form.
4. In terms of safety concerns and allegations of family violence, as already set out the mother has now had the opportunity to file an affidavit. She asserts that the father subjected her to physical violence, emotional and psychological abuse, financial control and coercive controlling behaviours. She says that the impact on her has been significant, including impacting on her psychologically. She says that whilst she intended to travel to the UAE temporarily, she made a decision to remain upon reconnecting with her family there.
5. The affidavit provides quite limited evidence regarding family violence and substantially makes broad and unparticularised statements, rather than providing details. I understand the affidavit was prepared quickly, but even allowing for that, there was scant detail of the allegations, particularly insofar as it refers to the children, or the impacts of the alleged behaviour on them.
6. In relation to any family violence orders, I understand that the mother did seek an intervention order in mid-2024. That application was not granted on the first return hearing that is conducted generally ex-parte. The matter was dealt with, finally, in late 2024. I am told the application was struck out on that occasion. Accordingly, despite the mother having sought an intervention order, the State Courts declined to grant one.
7. A careful reading of the mother's short affidavit makes it plain that the mother does not depose to any incidents that could reasonably suggest that the children are at risk in their father's care. Nor were there matters contained in the narrative to the mother's intervention order application that was tendered before me today, that raised credible concerns for the children in the event that they were to return to Australia, and either live with the father, or resume the shared care arrangement that has been in place for in excess of three years.
8. It does not appear to be in dispute that the children were living in a shared care arrangement post-separation. That was an arrangement the parties implemented themselves without the need for court orders. That arrangement is referred to by both parents in the Binding Financial Agreement that was executed in May 2025 and also deposed by each of them as being the care arrangements in place for the children in their joint divorce application filed about five months ago. There was no suggestion that the arrangement had altered in the few months since those documents were executed by the parties.
9. Importantly, nowhere in the mother's material does she contradict the father's evidence that the parties have a longstanding shared care arrangement in place for the children. She does not refer to the parenting arrangements that have been in place at all. She does not depose that there have been any difficulties with that shared care arrangement. At its highest, she deposes "my sole motivation has been to protect the children's emotional and psychological wellbeing after years of instability and conflict". However, she does not depose what instability or conflict the children have been exposed to. She does not suggest that the children were struggling, in any way, with the shared care arrangement. She does not refer to any issues about the father's parenting, or his parenting capacity. Indeed, she remains totally silent about the quality of the father's parenting and the children's relationships with him.
10. The mother's current proposals continue to make some provision for an ongoing relationship between the children and their father, albeit substantially conducted electronically. She also proposes there should continue to be some face-to-face time between the father and the children.
11. I am satisfied, as far as I need to be for the purposes of an interim hearing, that in circumstances where the parties have implemented a shared care arrangement and in the absence of any articulated complaint about the father's care of the children or the workability or practicability of the longstanding shared care arrangements, this suggests that each parent has considered:

(a) the other as being able to appropriately meet the needs of their children, and

(b) that there is a benefit to the children having each parent meaningfully involved in their care, wealth and development.

1. I note the father's evidence - again not disputed by the mother - is that he has been a consistent part of the children's lives since birth, and that until the mother's removal of the children from Australia, he remained actively engaged in their day-to-day care. That has included, he says, collecting the children from school, delivering them to school, taking them to extra-curricular classes, getting them ready for bed, feeding them, and spending time doing activities, including visiting family members, going on road trips and playing together.
2. The father also deposes that since he has been in the UAE, the mother has allowed only one 15 minute visit between the father and the children. It is his evidence that the mother has otherwise blocked the father's contact with the children, including interfering with the father's ability to contact X via his iPad.
3. The father deposes that the children and he have developed a close, warm and loving bond, and that they are comfortable in his care, and enjoy their routines with him, and that he gives them a sense of hope and security that he is concerned has now been disrupted by the mother's unilateral actions.
4. The mother does not specifically respond to much of the father's evidence about the limited time and communication with the children since they arrived in the UAE. She says that she has facilitated "regular contact" through electronic means and that she has "not objected to his seeing the children" when he has travelled to the UAE. However, as already referred, I note her proposals for supervised time only. It is unclear what risks the mother seeks to protect the children from when there is no risk apparently deposed to.
5. In addition to limiting the children's time and communication with their father, by having removed the children from Australia, the mother has also taken them out of their schools, and stopped their extra-curricular activities in Australia. I note the mother says she has enrolled the children in schools and activities in the UAE, however she has removed them from their community here.
6. The mother has also separated the children from their paternal family. The father deposes to the children having enjoyed a close relationship with their paternal grandparents, their paternal aunts and uncles, and ten cousins who all live in Australia. Those relationships have been interrupted by the mother having determined to retain the children outside of Australia. None of the father's evidence regarding the children's relationships with other paternal family members has been challenged.
7. I have little evidence of the children's views. The father asserts that when he saw the children for 15 minutes on 13 October 2025, they appeared confused and emotionally unsettled. He also said they both seemed scared that they would not be returning to their school and friends in Australia.
8. The mother makes no mention of the children's views.
9. It is the father's case that the mother's decision to remove and retain the children outside of Australia has interrupted their relationships with him, which he says raises concerns about the mother's ability to make appropriate parenting decisions for the children, and about the children's safety and wellbeing. Whilst the mother says the father consented to the trip, it is implicit in her affidavit that she acknowledges any consent, insofar as it may have been given, was for a temporary departure only, with the children to return by the end of October.
10. I am not satisfied that the mother has deposed to matters that would support interim orders that the children remain in her full-time care in the UAE. Rather, I am satisfied that the children's best interests are met by orders that they be immediately return to Australia. In the event the mother also returns, the shared care arrangement that has been in place for some time should be resumed. If she does not return, the children should remain in their father's care.
11. In addition to the matters I have already set out, the reasons for that determination include that an international relocation is a matter to which the court needs to give proper consideration, and not one that is appropriately determined in an abridged interim hearing.
12. The matters deposed to by the mother do not satisfy me that there is any safety issue that requires the mother and children to remain out of Australia pending a final determination. The children should be returned immediately to Australia, to their schools and their lives here.
13. Moreover, I note that the father has proposed he will not enforce the terms of the Binding Financial Agreement that would have required the mother to vacate the former matrimonial home by 25 November 2025. He has indicated he is prepared to allow her to remain in the home, at his expense, for a further six months. That means that there is no impediment financially to the mother returning home, and to the home in which she and the children have resided for several years. That will enable the children to return to their schools, their community, and their usual extra-curricular activities.
14. I am concerned about the impact on the children's welfare of being retained outside Australia, having been removed from their schools, from their father, from their friendships, and from their wider paternal family, and from the community. I am concerned that the children are likely distressed and confused, as a result of this.
15. I accept that if the children were to remain in the UAE on an interim basis, once the father returns to Australia, the geographical distances will make it very difficult for the children to maintain their relationships with their father. Time spent would likely be limited to periodic visits at significant expense, as it would involve international travel.
16. For all of the foregoing reasons, I am satisfied that it is appropriate that interim orders be made as set out.

I certify that the preceding forty-six (46) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Carter.