Namita & Terah (No 2) [2026] FedCFamC1F 20 (15 January 2026)

1. Pursuant to section 114(3) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ("the Act") the respondent mother be restrained from:
   • 3.1 continuing with the proceedings commenced by her before the City E courts in the United Arab Emirates ("UAE") and in the furtherance of this order the respondent mother immediately withdraw any and all ongoing cases, appeals and other executions related to Case No. [...]; and
   • 3.2 commencing or continuing proceedings in any jurisdiction other than Australia in relation to any matters covered by these orders, including parenting matters or child support matters between the parties.

1. Orders 2 and 3 of the orders made on 5 November 2025 remain in full force and effect.
2. The respondent mother do all such acts and sign all such documents as may be necessary to immediately facilitate the children's return to the Commonwealth of Australia in compliance with Order 2 of the orders made on 5 November 2025, including but not limited to:
   • 5.1 cancelling the travel ban dated 17 November in Case No. [...] before the City E courts, permitting the children to travel from the UAE to Australia and barring any future requests restricting the children's travel from the UAE; and
   • 5.2 delivering the children to the applicant father at B Hotel, C Street, Region D, City E in United Arab Emirates.

1. The respondent mother and applicant father do all such acts and things and sign all such documents as may be required to submit a copy of these orders and the orders made on 5 November 2025 for execution by the City E courts within one business day.
2. If the respondent mother fails to comply with Order 2 of the orders made on 5 November 2025, the applicant father be permitted (as far as the City E courts permit him to do so) to invoke compulsory enforcement of these orders and Order 2 of the orders made on 5 November 2025 and take all necessary measures available under UAE law to enforce the judgment.

1. The applicant father have sole parental responsibility for decision making in relation to major long term issues relating to the children.
2. In relation to any decision the applicant father is required to make in relation to the children pursuant to paragraph 8, the applicant father is to undertake the following actions before making such decision:
   • 9.1 the applicant father provide the mother with no less than 14 days' notice in writing of any such proposed decision; and
   • 9.2 the applicant father consult with the mother (by email or text communication) with regard to any such proposed decision and make a genuine effort to give consideration to her expressed view and make a genuine effort to reach agreement with the mother about any such proposed decision; and
   • 9.3 if no agreement is reached between the applicant father and mother, the applicant father make the final decision and within 14 days of so doing, provide the mother with written confirmation of the decision (by email or text is sufficient).

1. The children live with the applicant father.
2. The children spend time with the respondent mother in Australia as follows:
   • 11.1 In the event the respondent mother has returned to live in Australia, then during school terms (continuing as if uninterrupted by school holidays):
     • 11.1.1 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
     • 11.1.2 from 3.30 pm on the first Sunday of each calendar month to the commencement of school (or 4.00 pm if a non school day) Monday and monthly thereafter;

• 11.2 for one half of the term 1, term 2 and term 3 school holidays as agreed and in default of agreement the first half in odd numbered years and the second half in even numbered years;
• 11.3 during the long school summer holiday week about with the mother to have the first week (and alternate weeks thereafter) in the long school holiday which commences in odd numbered years and the second week (and alternate weeks thereafter) in the long school holiday which commences in odd numbered years and the second week, or in the event the mother is residing outside Australia, for a block of 21 nights at times agreed;

• 11.4 for each of the children's birthday if the children are not otherwise spending time with respondent mother pursuant to these orders the children on their birthday from after school (or 1.00 pm if the children are not at school) until 7.00 pm on their birthday;
• 11.5 on Mother's Day from 10.00 am on Saturday before Mother's Day to 6.00 pm on Mother's Day; and
• 11.6 on the mother's birthday:
  • 11.6.1 If on a weekday/school day, from after school (or 3.00 pm) until 8.30 pm that day; and
  • 11.6.2 If on a weekend/non-school day, from 9.00 am until 6.00 pm that day.

1. The children's time with the mother pursuant to Order 11 be suspended and the children spend the following time with the applicant father for special occasions;
   • 12.1 for each of the children's birthday if the children are not otherwise spending time with applicant father pursuant to these orders the children on their birthday from after school (or 1.00 pm if the children are not at school) until 7.00 pm on their birthday;
   • 12.2 on Father's Day from 10.00 am on Saturday before Father's Day to 6.00 pm on Father's Day;
   • 12.3 on the applicant father's birthday:
     • 12.3.1 if on a weekday/school day, from after school (or 3.00 pm) until 8.30 pm that day; and
     • 12.3.2 if on a weekend/non-school day, from 9.00 am until 6.00 pm that day.
2. For the purposes of time in order 11:
   • 13.1 changeovers take place to and from school;13.2 if the children are not at school, for example it is a curriculum day, or there is no on-site learning, then changeover take place at 3.30 pm that day;
   • 13.3 where the children are not at school the respondent mother collect the children from the applicant father's home at the commencement of the children's time with her and the applicant father collect the children from the respondent mother's home at the commencement of the children's time with him;
   • 13.4 school holidays periods commence from the conclusion of school on the last day of the school term for the youngest child and conclude at the commencement of school on the first day of the next school term for the youngest child;
   • 13.5 changeover times during school holidays is 3.30 pm;
   • 13.6 during school holidays which are to be divided in half if there are two middle days the changeover be the second middle day; and
   • 13.7 time shall occur in Australia unless otherwise agreed between the parties in writing.

1. Each parent facilitate the children communicating with the other parent by phone and/or video calls as requested by the children and at times to be agreed between the parties and in default of agreement each alternate day they are with that parent at 6.00 pm Melbourne time with the parent in whose care the children are at the time to initiate the call to the other parent.
2. The parents communicate with each other regarding the child arrangements using the email or sms.

1. Each of the applicant father and the respondent mother keep one another informed of their residential address, mobile telephone number(s), landline telephone number (if applicable), and preferred email address and notify the other within 24 hours of any actual or anticipated changes to those details.

1. Pursuant to section 65Y and section 65Z of the Act, the Applicant father Mr Terah is authorised to apply for, sign all documents, and do all acts and things necessary to obtain an Australian passport for each of child:
   • 17.1 X born 2018; and
   • 17.2 Y born 2020

without the consent or signature of the Respondent mother Ms Namita.

1. In relation to the children's passports:
   • 18.1 the respondent mother deliver all passports (including overseas passports) and all original birth certificates for the children to the applicant father within seven days; and
   • 18.2 the applicant father hold the children's passports and original birth certificates.
2. The respondent mother be and is hereby restrained from applying for or obtaining any passport of any country or jurisdiction on behalf of either child.

1. Upon the children's return to the Commonwealth of Australia 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 from the Commonwealth of Australia without the authenticated written consent of the applicant father.
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 Family Law Watch List in force at all points of arrival and departure in the Commonwealth of Australia and maintain the children's name on the Family Law Watch List until further order or upon the each of the children turning 18 years of age.
3. 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. Each of the respondent mother and the applicant father:
   • 23.1 immediately notify the other of any medical emergency, serious illness or injury experienced by the children, requiring medical treatment or hospitalisation while the children are in their care respectively;
   • 23.2 forthwith inform the other of any medical, dental or other health practitioner with whom the children are scheduled to consult with or have consulted with and the details of any hospital attended by the children and authorise the other parent to make all reasonable enquiries of such practitioner(s) and/or hospital in respect of matters concerning the children's health and medical treatment;
   • 23.3 forthwith provide the other with copies of any reports or records provided to them respectively by any hospital or medical, dental, orthodontic or other health professional attended by the children; and
   • 23.4 be and hereby authorised to provide a copy of these orders to any hospital or medical, dental or other health professional attended by the children.

Education, sporting and extra-curricular activities

1. Each of the respondent mother and the applicant father be and are hereby authorised (and provide such authorities as are necessary this order is complied with) to:
   • 24.1 receive information, notices, reports, class lists and family contact details and photographs directly from any school, and/or provider of extra-curricular or sporting activities attended by the children;
   • 24.2 attend all events parents are invited to and permitted to attend, including but not limited to, open days, concerts, parent teacher interviews, sports days, sports training and matches, and like events; and
   • 24.3 provide a copy of these orders to any school and/or provider of extra-curricular or sporting activities attended by the children.

1. The applicant father to forthwith serve copy of these orders and the judgment on the respondent mother by email at her email addresses [...] and [...@...] and she is deemed to have been served with these orders and the judgment.

1. The time for either party to file a Notice of Appeal in relation to these orders pursuant to rule 13.03(1) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2024 be shortened to on or before 4.00 pm Australian Eastern Daylight Time on 22 January 2026.
2. All applications are otherwise dismissed.

A. The father has given a warranty to the Court that in the event the mother returns to Australia with the children he will permit the mother to reside in the property at K Street, Suburb G until 31 March 2026 and meet all outgoings with respect to the property during her occupation.

1. For the purposes of enforcement of these orders in the UAE and consideration of the interpretation of these orders under Sharia Law, order 10 means that the children are not permitted to live with the respondent mother whilst they are in the UAE and that the applicant father is the sole custodian of the children.

1. Pursuant to s.65DA(2) and s.62B, the particulars of the obligations these orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these orders and details of who can assist the parties adjust to and comply with an order are set out in the Fact Sheet attached hereto and these particulars are included in these orders.

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. This is the father's application seeking orders in relation to the children of the parties, being almost eight-year-old X born 2018, and five-year-old Y born 2020 (collectively "the children").
2. The children are currently in the United Arab Emirates ("UAE"), having been removed from Australia by their mother in October 2025. The mother has not returned with the children, despite having deposed in an affidavit filed on 3 November 2025 that that trip was "temporary" and that she had booked tickets to return on 23 October 2025. Through her then lawyers, the mother advised this Court, on 31 October 2025, that she intended to return "in the near future".
3. Orders were made by this Court on 5 November 2025 requiring the children to be returned to Australia within seven days. The mother has not complied with those orders.
4. At a directions hearing on 12 December 2025, the parenting proceedings were set down for a final parenting hearing to commence on 14 January 2026. The matter proceeded yesterday and today.

1. Orders were also made at the directions hearing on 12 December 2025 for the preparation of a family report and for trial material to be filed by both the mother and father on 24 December 2025.
2. For the purposes of the preparation of the family report, the parties were directed to attend electronically upon the Family Report writer and for the mother to facilitate an observation session (to be conducted electronically) between the children and the father at an agreed address in the UAE.
3. The trial directions included an order that in the event either party did not comply with the filing of material in accordance with the orders, the compliant party had liberty to seek to proceed on an undefended basis at the final hearing. The trial directions further provided the mother with leave to attend and give evidence at the final hearing electronically.
4. The mother was represented at the hearing on 12 December 2025 and accordingly was aware of the date of the final hearing and that it was to commence yesterday. She was also aware of the timetable for the filing of material and of her obligations to participate in and facilitate the children's participation in the family report.
5. The mother did not permit the children to be interviewed by the Family Report writer or observed with their father. The mother also did not attend her own appointment with the Family Report writer. Nor has she filed material in accordance with the trial directions. She has not filed a response setting out the orders she seeks, a Notice of Address for Service, or a Notice of Child Abuse. Additionally, she did not attend the final hearing either yesterday or today. Nor has she arranged for any appearance on her behalf.
6. In relation to the family report, an assessment was scheduled to occur on 18 December 2025. On 17 December 2025, the mother's then solicitors requested confirmation of the time of the assessment scheduled the following day. They were advised this was to occur at 4.00 pm on 18 December 2025. However, at about 1.30 pm on 18 December 2025, the mother's then solicitor advised she was attempting to obtain instructions from the mother. Later that afternoon, the mother's then solicitor advised the Family Report writer that the mother was "experiencing difficulties" and proposed the assessment occur at 5.00 pm instead. However, the mother's then solicitor subsequently advised she could not contact her client, and the assessment did not take place.
7. The Family Report writer offered another time for assessment, being 7.00 pm on 19 December 2025. However, the mother's then solicitors advised they no longer acted on the mother's behalf. The mother was advised directly of the new appointment by email to herself. However, she did not respond to any communications from the Family Report writer. Nor did she attend her appointment or facilitate the children's attendance upon the Family Report writer on 19 December 2025.
8. The solicitors who acted for the mother filed a Notice of Ceasing to Act on 30 December 2025. The father's lawyers have, since that time, attempted to correspond with the mother directly. She has failed to respond to any of their correspondence.
9. The father seeks that the matter proceeds on an undefended basis, and I am satisfied that this is appropriate.
10. The mother is well aware the matter was listed for hearing to commence yesterday, 14 January 2026. As observed, she was represented at the hearing on 12 December 2025 when the hearing was set down. On 6 January 2026, she was provided with a link to join these proceedings, which were conducted yesterday electronically to facilitate her ability to participate and attend. She was reminded by email again today that the matter was listed. She has not attended either date.
11. The mother has had the same opportunity as the father to provide comprehensive evidence to the Court and to prepare her case. The matter was set down for hearing over a month ago. I understand the mother has participated in proceedings in the UAE in that period. I am unaware of any reason why the mother could not have filed trial material or properly participated in these proceedings. She has not contacted the father or his lawyers to offer any explanation. She has not contacted the Court to explain her failure to file or her failure to attend.
12. The mother was squarely on notice that if she did not comply with the trial directions, the father could seek to proceed undefended. As observed, the mother has provided no explanation for her failure to file material in accordance with the directions of this Court. Nor has she explained her absence at the final hearing either yesterday or again today.
13. There is a significant degree of urgency in this matter, such that an adjournment to give the mother further time to provide material or to participate would not be appropriate. The urgency arises in part because of the mother's unilateral decision to remove the children from Australia in October 2025, and to retain them there against the father's wishes; it also arises in part as a result of the mother's refusal to return the children to Australia, notwithstanding orders of this Court made 5 November 2025 requiring her to do so; and lastly, the urgency arises in circumstances where the mother has pursued parenting orders in the UAE, despite the anti-suit junction made on 31 October 2025.
14. As to those proceedings in the UAE, the mother made an application in the Family Court in City E in October 2025. At the hearing on 31 October 2025 before me, the mother conceded this Court had jurisdiction to determine the care arrangements of the children. Moreover, the mother did not raise any objection in her response to Australia being the forum to hear the competing parenting applications, nor did she seek orders restraining the father from pursuing his application in Australia. Instead, she participated in these proceedings, including filing material and attending Court hearings here in October, November and December 2025.
15. As observed, submissions made on her behalf by her representatives were regarding the substantive parenting dispute - and no applications were formally made raising questions of jurisdiction or forum. I note that counsel who appeared on behalf of the mother at the directions hearing on 12 December 2025 suggested his client ought not to have conceded jurisdiction - but no application challenging this Court's jurisdiction - or asserting Australia was an inappropriate forum to deal with a substantive parenting dispute - was ever made.
16. Orders of this Court were made on 31 October 2025, restraining the mother from prosecuting any application regarding the care of the children in any other court. The mother did not appeal that order.
17. Notwithstanding the mother's concessions regarding jurisdiction, and despite orders to the contrary, the mother has prosecuted her application for guardianship and sole custody of the children in the UAE. She submitted a petition to the courts in City E in November 2025. Those proceedings were listed short time later in 2025. The mother filed a Statement of Claim in those proceedings in November 2025. In material filed in those proceedings by the mother in December 2025, she asserted jurisdiction belonged to the UAE courts, and asserted - inaccurately - that the judgments of this Court had been issued without granting her "the full right to defense", and that she had been "unable to present her defense comprehensively".
18. I do not agree with that characterisation. The mother was served with the father's initiating application on 23 October 2025 by email. The mother did not attend the hearing on 27 October 2025. That day, and in light of the mother's non-attendance, the matter was adjourned to 31 October 2025. The mother was advised of the adjourned date, and a solicitor instructed by the mother appeared on her behalf on 31 October 2025. The mother had still not prepared any material, and she sought a further adjournment that day, to enable her to prepare a response and affidavit. A further, short adjournment was granted to enable the mother to prepare that material, and the matter returned to Court on 5 November 2025. By that time, the mother had filed a Response and an Affidavit in Support. The mother was represented by counsel on 5 November 2025. Accordingly, the mother did have the opportunity to provide this Court with her evidence and advise the Court as to the orders she sought.
19. The mother has also had an opportunity to present her case comprehensively for this final hearing. She was represented by counsel at the directions hearing on 12 December 2025, and was in attendance electronically that day. It is correct that her counsel opposed the matter being listed for final hearing so promptly. However, in circumstances where the mother was retaining the children outside Australia, notwithstanding Court orders requiring her to return them, the matter was set down for a final hearing to commence 14 January 2026. I accept this meant that the parties had somewhat limited time to prepare their trial affidavits. However, the parties have had the same truncated timeframe to file their trial material as each other. Both were to file their trial affidavits by 24 December 2025. The father has complied - and filed a substantial affidavit. The mother has elected to ignore my trial directions.
20. The mother's application for custody in the UAE was heard in December 2025 in the City E courts and judgment delivered a short time later in 2025. I am informed the orders made included that the children were to remain in the custody of the mother. The UAE court has also made an airport watchlist or a travel ban prohibiting the children from being removed from the UAE.
21. The father intends to appeal that decision. That appeal must be filed on 22 January 2026. I understand the finalisation of these proceedings will be a relevant consideration in any appeal application or enforcement application lodged by the father in the UAE.
22. The children's best interests clearly require that the matter be finalised as soon as practicable. They have been retained outside Australia by their mother, having been unilaterally removed by her. For reasons that I will turn to shortly, I am satisfied the children were removed without the father's knowledge or consent, and that the mother misled the Australian Passport Office and obtained the children's passports fraudulently.
23. Until the children were wrongfully removed, the children had lived their entire lives in Australia - and Australia remains their place of habitual residence. The mother continues to retain them outside Australia in contravention of orders of this Court. Without any explanation, she has elected not to participate in these proceedings, despite the opportunity to do so, including that the mother was able to attend electronically.
24. Accordingly, I grant the father leave to proceed on an undefended basis.

1. There is no doubt that this Court has jurisdiction to deal with the parenting issues under ss 69E(1)(b) and (c) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ("the Act"). The father is a parent of the children, is an Australian citizen, and was ordinarily a resident in Australia on the date the proceedings were filed - being 10 October 2025. The mother is also an Australian citizen, as are the children [see ss 69E(1)(b) and (c) of the Act].
2. On the mother's evidence - as deposed in her affidavit filed 4 November 2025 - the trip to the UAE was proposed to be temporary. She left with the children in October 2025 with tickets booked to return on 23 October 2025. Accordingly, she and the children were ordinarily resident in Australia as at 10 October 2025 when the father filed his parenting application, as they had only left Australia, apparently, for a short overseas holiday at that time.
3. Only one of the subsections needs to be satisfied to enable proceedings to be instituted under the Act in relation to parenting. In the extant matter, ss 69E(1)(b) and (c) are readily satisfied.
4. As already observed at the hearing on 31 October 2025, through her then lawyer, the mother conceded this Court had jurisdiction to deal with the issues of parenting. The mother had attended that hearing via Webex.
5. Further and as already observed, the mother's response filed 4 November 2025 did not raise jurisdiction or forum as an issue in dispute. She did not seek orders that the father be restrained from pursuing his application for parenting before this Court. Rather, she sought substantive parenting orders, pursuant to which she proposed that the children live with her in the UAE and spend time and have communication with their father.
6. I also note that the father issued these proceedings on 10 October 2025. An order was made on 31 October 2025 restraining the mother from taking steps to prosecute an application for the care of the children in another court. In breach of that order, the mother filed a petition in the City E courts in November 2025 that included an application for "custody**"** of the children. In further breach of the orders made 31 October 2025, the mother filed a Statement of Claim regarding the parenting in the City E courts and proceeded with her application that was ultimately heard in December 2025.
7. In circumstances where the mother has:
   • conceded this Court has jurisdiction to deal with the parenting dispute;
   • not objected to this Court dealing with the parenting dispute;
   • not asserted that Australia is a clearly inappropriate forum;
   • not sought a stay of the Australian proceedings;
   • actively participated in the substantive parenting dispute before this Court, including filing material seeking substantive parenting orders;
   • failed to appeal the order made 31 October 2025 restraining her from pursuing parenting proceedings outside Australia; and
   • breached the order made that day,

I am satisfied that the anti-suit injunction sought by the father is also appropriate.

1. Section 140 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) sets out that the standard of proof in these proceedings is to the balance probabilities.

(a) the affidavit of the father filed 24 December 2025;

(b) the affidavit of Mr L, solicitor in the UAE, filed 24 December 2025; and

(c) his amended application filed 24 December 2025.

1. The father also relied on the family report of Dr M filed 13 January 2026 and the affidavit of Ms N as to service filed 7 January 2026. A number of documents were also tendered into evidence.
2. The father seeks orders in accordance with his Further Amended Initiating Application filed 24 December 2025. In relation to parenting, he seeks that the children be returned to Australia and that the mother facilitate the children's return, including cancelling the travel ban that has been made in the UAE. He seeks an order that he be solely responsible for making decisions regarding the children's major long-term issues and that they live with him.
3. In the event the mother returns to Australia, he proposes the parties reinstate the long-standing shared care arrangement for the children and that there be a sharing of holidays and special occasions.
4. In the event the mother remains in the UAE, he proposes the children spend time with her in Australia during school holidays. He proposes the children have regular communication with each of their parents and that each parent keep the other informed regarding the children's wellbeing and activities.
5. In addition, he proposes that he be able to apply for the children's passports and that the mother be restrained from seeking any passports on behalf of either child. He further proposes that there be a watchlist order to remain in place until they are 18 years old.
6. The mother is well aware of the orders sought by the father. Ms N has filed an affidavit opposing the father's Further Amended Initiating Application and, together with his trial material, were served on the mother by email on 24 December 2025. The mother was also provided with a copy of Dr M's report on 13 January 2026 by email, with Dr M having emailed the party simultaneously.
7. The only difference between the orders sought at trial and those set out in the father's Further Amended Initiating Application is that the father also seeks that the time for either party to file a Notice of Appeal be abridged to 4.00 pm Australian Eastern Standard time on 19 January 2026. That proposed order was not in the father's Further Amended Initiating Application. However, it was included in the Joint Minute of Final Orders sought that was emailed to the mother on 12 January 2026 - although in that iteration the father sought that the parties have seven days to file a Notice of Appeal. I am satisfied in all the circumstances that the mother has had some notice that a shortened timeframe to file a Notice of Appeal would be sought in the proceedings before me.
8. The father's Case Outline was also served on the mother by email on 12 January 2026.

1. As already observed, the mother failed to attend Court and failed to file any trial material despite having had the opportunity to do so.

1. The father was born in Country H in 1985. He is 40 years old. He is in a managerial role at O Pty Ltd and is in good health. He has resided in Australia since late1997.
2. The mother was also born in Country H in 1993. She is 32 years old. She works in the health industry.
3. The parties married in City E in a religious ceremony in 2014 when the mother was living there. They participated in formal wedding celebrations in Country P in October 2015. The parties commenced living together in early 2017 when the mother moved to Australia.
4. The parties' first child, X, was born in 2018. Y was born in 2020. The parties jointly arranged for both children to attend J School, commencing in their prep years. X would be moving into Grade 4 and Y into Grade 1 if they return in time for the 2026 Australian school year. Both children are in good health.
5. It is the father's evidence that the parties separated in April 2022, when the father moved out of the former matrimonial home and started living with his parents. The parties then implemented a shared care arrangement with the children living with the mother for about six nights a fortnight and with their father for about eight nights a fortnight.
6. In addition, there were a number of occasions where the mother travelled outside of Australia leaving the children in the care of the father. She travelled outside Australia, leaving the children in the father's care from February 2023 to April 2023. She again travelled outside Australia, leaving the children with the father from October 2023 to November 2023, from [...] January 2024 to [...] January 2024 and again from July 2024 to August 2024.
7. In October 2024, the mother applied for an Intervention Order. In her complaint, the mother asserted the father was tracking her online, that she felt "concerned for my safety" and felt the father was trying to intimidate and pressure her into an early resolution of the property dispute. She complained that the father had sent her "threatening and degrading text messages about money and the property" and had called her "an animal". She said she felt he was watching and monitoring her.
8. The court declined to make an order and the application was struck out.
9. The mother continued to travel outside Australia, leaving the children in the father's care from November 2024 to December 2024 and again from March 2025 to April 2025.
10. In May 2025, the parties entered into a Binding Financial Agreement and a Binding Child Support Agreement. They also jointly applied for a divorce. In the recitals to the child support agreement, it is recorded that the father calculated the children were with him eight nights a fortnight and with the mother six; and that the mother calculated the children lived with each of the parents for 15 nights per month. The joint divorce application also recorded that each parent acknowledged the parents were sharing the care of the children. The mother was represented by lawyers when those documents were drafted and executed.
11. The mother once again travelled outside Australia, leaving the children in the father's care from July 2025 to August 2025.
12. On [...] August 2025 the mother submitted a B11 form to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade ("DFAT") in which she asserted:

We are planning to travel overseas for a summer holiday and while preparing our documents, I realised the passports were missing. I searched thoroughly at the home and in the car but have not been able to relocate them. I believe they may have been displaced during a recent cleanup or move.

1. There was no suggestion that the parents had separated in that correspondence with DFAT. Nor is there any evidence that the parties had reached an agreement to travel overseas for a summer holiday as at that time.
2. In September 2025, the mother obtained new birth certificates and citizenship certificates for each of the children.
3. The father deposed that on 11 September 2025, he emailed the mother and requested she provide him with the children's birth certificates and citizenship certificates. He said he wanted to renew their passports as X's had expired in March 2023, and Y's was due to expire in January 2026. The mother responded, asking why he wanted to renew the passports. She did not provide the original certificates. She did not tell the father she had been in communication with DFAT about obtaining passports for the children.
4. The mother obtained a passport for X on 18 September 2025. For the reasons that follow, I am satisfied that the mother obtained that passport - and a passport for Y - without the father's knowledge or consent.
5. In around September and October 2025, the parties engaged in discussions regarding the mother travelling overseas with the children. On 24 September 2025 the mother proposed travelling as a family to Country Q. The father responded on 24 September, repeating that X's passport had expired and Y's was due to expire shortly.
6. The mother emailed the father on 25 September 2025 and again suggested that the parties travel together as a family to Country Q. She also wrote:

You can hold the passports with you during the trip. If [X's] passport is expired, I'll renew it.

1. She failed to inform the father that she had in fact already obtained a new passport for X.
2. In his responding email, the father said he was not comfortable about the mother travelling internationally with the children as he had no trust in her. He repeated he needed the children's original birth certificates so he could seek new passports for him. The mother promptly responded:

Don't worry about the passports - I'll take care of everything.

1. Again, she suggested that they could all travel as a family to Country Q or Country R for a holiday or a short trip. Again, she did not inform the father that she had already obtained a passport for X.
2. The following day, the father emailed the mother:

You cannot get passport without me. I am the primary career [sic] for the kids just to be clear and it is an offense to do anything without me about the passports.

The mother promptly responded:

Yes, of course. But I can try and sort out paperwork for you if you want.

1. Yet again, she did not tell the father she had obtained a passport for X or that she had by then submitted applications for Y's passport to be renewed.
2. Documents from DFAT were tendered into evidence before me. That included passport applications for both children made by the mother and signed on 10 September 2025 and, it would appear, signed by her again on 16 September 2025.
3. The documents signed by the mother on 10 September 2025 also show a signature for the father with a date given of 11 September 2025. The father denies that he provided those signatures. The guarantor is listed as Mr S. The father deposed he does not know anyone by that name. The father also deposed that he has never met or heard of anyone called Mr T, who it was asserted witnessed the father's signature on the applications.
4. The applications state that the "child intends to travel in September 2025".
5. The father was listed as parent two on both applications. The physical address for the father was asserted to be the former matrimonial home, being the mother's then address. This is despite that the father had left that accommodation more than three years earlier. The mother also gave the same contact telephone number for both parents.
6. A declaration of interview for both children's passports was completed by an officer of the Passport Office on 16 September 2025. The officer entered the following handwritten comment: "A faxed copy for father's consent from overseas".
7. A file note records that an officer contacted the mother on 18 September 2025. The mother advised the father was overseas in City E on holiday, and suggested it would be quicker if the father contacted the Australian Embassy to confirm his consent.
8. The tendered documents included a pro forma document titled Application for an Australian Travel Document General Declaration Form. That document asserts it was completed and signed by the father on 18 September 2025. It provides a phone number for the father that is not a number that the father recognises and to which he has no connection. The father said he has had his current mobile number since he met the mother and that that is the number he provided in the children's earlier passport applications in which he actually participated.
9. That declaration form also provided an email address for the father that was incorrect. The email provided in the document is [...@...]. The correct email address for the father is [...@...].
10. That document also contains the following handwritten statement:

I was preparing for my children's upcoming holiday and went to locate [Y's] passport. Despite searching thoroughly, I was unable to find it. As the passport has been lost, I am now applying for a replacement.

1. The father denied having written or signed that document. The document records the father's address as the U Hotel in City E. The father was not in City E or at that hotel at that time.
2. Despite having been afforded the opportunity to do so, the mother has provided no explanation as to why the father and she would have engaged in discussions between themselves about obtaining new passports for the children on 11 September and again on 24 to 26 September 2025 if they had already been jointly engaged with the Passports Office and if the father had signed the applications as alleged on 11 September and then a declaration on 18 September, as asserted by the mother. She has also provided no explanation as to why she and the father would tell DFAT that the children had an upcoming holiday - or why she told the Passports Office there was a departure date of [...] September 2025 - when the emails between the parties demonstrate there was no agreement reached regarding the children travelling internationally.
3. The mother has also not provided any evidence at trial to refute the father's assertion that his signature was forged and that the mother provided incorrect information to the authorities as to the father's residential address, his email address and his travel overseas. Her earlier filed affidavit asserted the father had consented to the travel and had signed the passport applications. However, this is clearly at odds with the communications between the parents, and the mother's failure to attend at Court means her evidence cannot be tested.
4. In all the circumstances, I am satisfied that the mother forged the father's signature and that she kept the father "in the dark" regarding her applications and representations to DFAT. I am also satisfied that she provided false information to the Passports Office, including providing a false email address for the father, an incorrect residential address, and providing a declaration falsely asserting it had been completed by the father. She also asserted to the authorities that the father was overseas at the time. The Passports Office has now confirmed the father was not overseas on the dates as asserted.
5. The passport application form makes it plain that it is a criminal offence under the Australian Passports Act 2005 (Cth) to make false or misleading statements. However, the mother proceeded to do so.
6. The mother was provided with a passport for X on 18 September 2025 and a passport for Y on 30 September 2025. The mother has failed to provide any explanation as to why she did not inform the father in their discussions on 24 to 26 September 2025, when they discussed the need to get new passports, that she had already obtained a new passport for X.
7. The father travelled overseas in September 2025. He was due to return in October 2025. In his absence, the parties had agreed to maintain the usual care routine for the children, with the children being cared for by the paternal grandparents whilst the father was abroad. The children were with the paternal grandparents until 4 October 2025. They then went to their mother's care.
8. The mother took the children from Australia to the UAE in October 2025. She has remained there with the children since.
9. I am satisfied that the mother did not inform the father that she was taking the children and that he did not consent to the children travelling outside Australia. He became aware they were not in Australia after receiving notifications from the children's school in October 2025 that they were not in attendance, and after reporting this to the Australian Federal Police, who were able to confirm to him that the mother had left Australia with the children.
10. The mother's removal of the children was without notice to the father and unilateral. She has continued to retain the children in the UAE despite telling this Court she intended to return with the children. The mother has also significantly restricted the children's time and communication with their father.
11. Upon learning the children were in the UAE, the father immediately flew to City E. He also brought an application under the Act on 10 October 2025.
12. The father has been able to have some limited contact with the children in City E. He saw the children on 13 October 2025 at the home of the maternal grandparents. It is the father's evidence that during that visit, X said they had gone for "[...] days" for a "surprise visit", and now they were going to live in City E. The father said Y was very attached to him and appeared emotionally unsettled. He deposed that the children seemed scared and confused about the move and were worried that they would not be returning to their school and their friends.
13. On that same day, the mother unilaterally enrolled the children at a school in City E. She did not discuss this with the father. She listed her brother as the father of the children on the enrolment form.
14. The children's passports were cancelled by DFAT on 16 October 2025. The Department informed the father the passports were cancelled as DFAT formed the view that:

We have reasonable grounds to suspect both fraud and dishonesty in the applications which were used to subsequently receive the Australian passport for [X] and [Y].

and that the father's signature on both applications:

1. On 17 October 2025, the father emailed the mother and requested that she return the children to Australia. The mother responded on 19 October 2025. It was a reasonably vague response. She asserted that there was an agreement that she could visit the family overseas. She did not refer to her future plans or whether she intended to return to Australia or remain in the UAE.
2. The matter was listed before me on 27 October 2025. The mother did not attend. The matter was adjourned with directions as to service to ensure that the mother was on notice that the matter may proceed undefended if she did not attend on the return date.
3. Also on that day, a session took place in the City E court before a mediator upon the mother's application. The mother was given a period of time to register the case in the City E court, pay the court fee and inform the father of the proceedings.
4. The matter was relisted before me on 31 October 2025. The mother was represented by lawyers on that date. As already observed, I granted a short adjournment to enable the mother to file responding material. On that day at Court, the mother's lawyers advised their client intended to return the children to Australia. The Court was also informed that the mother conceded this Court had jurisdiction to determine the parenting arrangements of the children, and an order was made on that date restraining the mother from taking any steps to prosecute any an application regarding the care of the children in any other court.
5. The mother filed her responding material on 3 November 2025. As already set out, the mother sought parenting orders. She raised no issue as to forum or jurisdiction.
6. The mother filed a petition in the City E courts in November 2025 seeking, inter alia, that the court "recognize her custody of her children."
7. The matter returned before me on 5 November 2025. On that day, orders were made for the children's immediate return to Australia, with the mother to hand the children to the father on 6 November and for the children to live with the father pending the mother's return to Australia. In the event the mother returned, the orders made provided for the shared care arrangement to resume. The father was prepared to provide the mother with access to the former matrimonial home, rent free, for a further six months to ensure she and the children had accommodation upon their return.
8. The mother failed to facilitate the handover of the children to the father on 6 November 2025.
9. The father was advised on 7 November 2025 that the mother was prosecuting her application for guardianship and sole custody of the children in the City E courts. She filed a Statement of Claim in November 2025 in which she continued to seek parenting orders.
10. The father was able to see the children at school on 20 November 2025. He saw them at the school again 7 November and 7 December 2025. The father does not know if the school will facilitate any further visits.
11. The father attended at the former matrimonial home in early December 2025. His evidence is that the property had been substantially emptied, save for some storage boxes and large furniture items. He said all of the children's and the mother's belongings had been removed.
12. The matter returned to this Court on 12 December 2025, and orders were made for the matter to be listed for a final hearing for the preparation of a family report and for the parties to file trial affidavits.
13. The mother's application was heard in the City E courts in December 2025. Judgment was reserved.
14. The children saw their father for a further visit in City E at the maternal grandparents' home on 16 December 2025.
15. As already set out, the mother did not make the children available to participate in interviews with the Family Report writer scheduled for 18 December 2025. She did not respond to a request that she and the children participate in a rescheduled interview on 19 December 2025. I infer from that failure that the mother was concerned the children's interviews would assist the father's application.
16. On 19 December 2025, the mother's lawyers advised the father's that they had held no instructions from her.
17. The City E courts handed down judgment in December 2025. The orders made grant the mother sole custody and guardianship.
18. The father filed his trial material in accordance with my trial directions on 24 December 2025. The mother did not.
19. The father last saw the children for about an hour and a half on 27 December 2025. Again, that was at the home of the maternal grandparents in City E. The father said it has been difficult to make further arrangements to spend time with the children.
20. The mother's lawyers filed a Notice of Ceasing to Act on 30 December 2025.
21. The final hearing commenced before me on 14 January 2026. It continued on 15 January 2026. The mother did not attend either day, despite being provided with the court link to do so and despite being called outside the courtroom on both days.

HOW ARE THE CHILDREN'S BEST INTERESTS ASSESSED?

1. Section 60CA of the Act sets out that when deciding whether to make a particular parenting order in relation to children, the best interests of the children must be my paramount consideration.
2. The objects of part VII of the Act inform how I must exercise my discretion. Those objects include ensuring that the best interests of the children are met, including by ensuring their safety. The legislation further provides that I must also give effect to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child ('Convention on the Rights of the Child') (s 60B(b)).

1. There are a range of considerations set out in ss 60CC(2) and (2A) of the Act that I must take into account in determining what is in the children's best interests.
2. Section 60CC(2) sets out a non-hierarchical list of considerations which I must take into account being:

(a) what arrangements would promote the safety (including safety from being subjected to, or exposed to, family violence, abuse, neglect, or other harm) of: > > > (i) the child; and > > > > (ii) each person who has care of the child (whether or not a person has parental responsibility for the child); > > (b) any views expressed by the child; > > (c) the developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs of the child; > > (d) the capacity of each person who has or is proposed to have parental responsibility for the child to provide for the child's developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs; > > (e) the benefit to the child of being able to have a relationship with the child's parents, and other people who are significant to the child, where it is safe to do so; > > (f) anything else that is relevant to the particular circumstances of the child.

In considering the matters set out in paragraph (2)(a), the court must include consideration of:

(a) any history of family violence, abuse or neglect involving the child or a person caring for the child (whether or not the person had parental responsibility for the child); and

(b) any family violence order that applies or has applied to the child or a member of the child's family.

1. The affidavit filed by the mother on 3 November 2025 made a number of allegations regarding family violence. The father denies all allegations of violence. I will return to this consideration shortly.
2. There is no evidence before me that there would be any safety concerns for the children or either parent if the children live in the father's care, or in a shared care arrangement.
3. The mother has had the opportunity to depose a trial affidavit setting out in detail any safety concerns she has. She has chosen to provide no evidence to this Court. In the affidavit previously deposed by her, nowhere in that affidavit does the mother depose to any event or circumstance that could reasonably suggest that the children would be 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 that could be said to raise credible concerns for the children or for their mother in the event that they were to return to Australia, and either live with their father or resume the shared care arrangement that had been in place for in excess of three years.
4. Importantly, both parents told the Court in their joint application for divorce that there was a shared care arrangement in place as at May 2025, and neither party was suggesting that arrangement should then be changed. There was nothing in the mother's earlier filed affidavit that suggested there had been any event between May 2025 and her date of departure that caused her to be fearful for her safety or for that of the children or that suggested the shared care arrangements were no longer in the children's best interests.
5. Moreover, the mother travelled overseas on seven occasions between February 2023 and August 2025 as outlined, for up to two months. On each occasion, she left the children in the father's primary care. It is implicit in the mother's choice to leave the children in their father's care for these extended periods that she did not have concerns for their safety or wellbeing whilst with him, even in her - at times lengthy - absence from Australia.
6. Lastly, in September 2025, the mother repeatedly invited the father to travel with her and the children as a family on an overseas trip. That does not suggest the mother was fearful of the father or had any genuine concerns for her safety or that of the children.

1. As the mother failed to facilitate the children's interview with the Family Report writer, there is no independent evidence as to the children's views.
2. The father deposed that at the first visit he had with the children in October 2025, the children expressed confusion and worry that they are now in the UAE and that they want to return home to Australia and to their school and friends here. He deposed that on subsequent visits, the children repeatedly told him that they want to go back to Australia. He said the children have also told him that they miss him and that they miss their beds at home in Melbourne. I accept his evidence.

Developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs of the children

1. The children appear to be delightful children. They are both in good health. I have had the benefit of X's Grade 3 school report. He is doing very well at school and clearly works hard and engages well.
2. I am most concerned about the impact on the children of being unilaterally removed from Australia by their mother. They have been removed from their home, their school, and their community. Their time with their father has been significantly restricted. They have seen him only on a handful of occasions for short visits since they were removed. They have had no time or communication with their extended paternal family in Australia with whom the children were previously significantly engaged. This must be deeply confusing and distressing for the children - who have been removed from all that is familiar to them. This must be having a detrimental psychological and emotional impact on them.

Capacity of each person who has or is proposed to have parental responsibility for the child to provide for their developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs

1. It is apparent that each parent is reasonably able to meet the children's day-to-day needs. That they implemented a shared care arrangement suggests each parent was reasonably confident that the other was well-placed to meet the children's needs at least until they were unilaterally removed from Australia.
2. The Family Report writer has assessed the father as a "safe, stable and appropriate caregiver, capable of meeting the children's day-to-day care needs".
3. The father deposed to the routines and activities the children enjoyed whilst in his care. He took them to extra-curricular classes, cooked with them, took them shopping, took them to and from school, took them on outings - including to the beach, to the park, and on holidays. He read to them, played games with them, comforted and supported them, and shared meals and family celebrations together. He attended parent-teacher interviews and other school activities. It is apparent that the father was a consistent, attentive and active parent, and engaged in the children's wellbeing and development.
4. The mother also appears to be a capable parent. However, her determination to remove the children from Australia, from their father, from all that is familiar to them, without the father's knowledge or consent, and to then curtail the children's relationship with their father and paternal family, is deeply troubling. It demonstrates a lack of insight into the children's needs and suggests a disregard for the psychological and emotional impact on the children. As already observed the removal from Australia and the shared care arrangements, and the ongoing limiting of the father/child relationships is likely to be causing the children significant psychological harm and distress. The mother has not provided this Court with any adequate explanation for the disruption she has caused to the children.

The benefit to the child of being able to have a relationship with their parents, and other people who are significant to the child

1. I am satisfied that the children would benefit from having a relationship with each of their parents and with others who are significant to them. There is no evidence that would support a finding that the children are not benefiting from a relationship with each of their parents, and I cannot be satisfied that it is in their best interest to be deprived of a relationship with either of their parents.
2. If the mother returns to Australia and the children live here as well, the children will have the significant benefit of being able to have meaningful relationships with each of their parents. I am satisfied that the father is well able to promote and facilitate the children's relationship with their mother. To that end, I note his proposals are for a return to the shared care arrangement previously implemented by the parents. If the mother remains abroad, it is the father's proposal that the children be able to spend extended holiday time with their mother and engage in regular communication with her.
3. Conversely and as already observed, I have significant concerns about the mother's ability to facilitate and foster the children's relationship with their father. Her unilateral actions in having removed the children from Australia has significantly restricted the children's relationship with their father. The children have only been able to see him on a handful of occasions since they were removed from Australia. Save for some visits to school, the mother has only allowed short visits to occur at the home of her parents with another family member supervising time. The father's evidence is that he has not been able to speak with the children in a voice call or video call from either child since they were removed by their mother. This would be confusing for the children, and such limited time and communication would impact the ability of the children to maintain a deep and trusting relationship with their father.
4. The mother has also enrolled the children in a school in City E without consulting the father. She recorded her brother as the children's father on the school enrolment application. She has provided no explanation for her doing so.
5. I am not aware of what ongoing arrangements, if any, the mother is contemplating for the father/child relationships. It is the father's evidence that neither the mother, nor anyone on her behalf, has proposed any further visits since the last time he saw the children on 27 December 2025.
6. The father's unchallenged evidence is that the children also have a number of paternal relatives in Australia, including the paternal grandparents and a number of aunts and uncles and cousins, with whom the children have enjoyed close and loving relationships. The father deposed that his family is very close knit, and that prior to their removal, the children spent regular time with their cousins and paternal grandparents in particular. It is the father's evidence that the children are extremely close with their cousins, and that the children have enjoyed family celebrations, movie nights, sleep overs and other family activities with their extended family, and that they derive a strong sense of belonging and stability from the security and stability of those relationships.
7. The mother's unilateral removal of the children from Australia has severed those relationships.
8. The father deposed that X was confused as to why his paternal grandfather had not responded to messages X had sent on his iPad. When the father checked X's iPad, it became apparent that the paternal grandfather's phone number had been blocked on the device so that no responses could be received. No doubt, that would have been confusing and upsetting for the children.
9. The father's evidence is that whilst in Australia, the mother's family remained quite distant and travelled to Australia on a handful of occasions only to see the children. I accept the children now have the opportunity to develop closer relationships with members of the maternal family whilst they are being retained in the UAE.

Any other matters of relevance to the particular circumstances of the child

1. As already set out, the objects of p VII require that I must give effect to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Article 7 provides that children, as far as possible, have the right to know and be cared for by their parents. As already set out, if the children remain in the UAE, their relationship with their father - and their right to be cared for by him - will be significantly impaired. The orders obtained by the mother in the UAE do not provide for the children to have ongoing time with their father. Time is to be as agreed. The father has deposed to difficulties he has experienced in arranging visits, and the requirement by the mother that they take place under supervision. Conversely, if both parties reside in Australia, both parents can be significantly involved in the children's lives. Even if the mother remains abroad, the father proposes the children spend extended holiday time in her care.
2. Article 8 provides that children have the right to preserve family relations. For the reasons already set out, the children's removal from Australia has significantly diminished the children's ability to maintain relationships with their extended paternal family. The children also have the right to preserve their identity, including nationality. These rights have been interrupted by the mother's unilateral removal of the children from Australia and retention in the UAE. They are Australian citizens and have lived all their lives here.

History of family violence, abuse or neglect and any family violence orders that apply or have applied

1. In the affidavit filed by the mother on 3 November 2025, she asserted the father subjected her to physical violence, emotional and psychological abuse, financial control and coercive controlling behaviours. She said that the impact on her of those behaviours had been significant, including impacting on her psychologically. She deposed that while she had intended to travel to the UAE temporarily when she left, upon reconnecting with her family in City E, she made a decision to remain.
2. That affidavit provided quite limited evidence regarding family violence. It provided little detail and substantially comprised broad and unparticularised statements. The affidavit had been prepared quickly, but even allowing for that, there was scant detail of the allegations, particularly insofar as it referred to concerns about the children or the impacts of the alleged behaviour on them. Moreover, the mother has now had the opportunity to provide a trial affidavit setting out in detail her allegations. She has chosen to remain silent.
3. As already observed, the mother sought an Intervention Order in 2024. I have set out the complaints made in that application. The complaints do not match the allegations made by the mother in her affidavit of physical violence or of financial control during the relationship. The mother has not provided any explanation for the omission of allegations of physical violence and financial control during the relationship from her application for an Intervention Order. Nor do the complaints in the application for an Intervention Order suggest any behaviour on behalf of the father that places the children at risk.
4. Further, and as already noted, the Magistrate's Court declined to make any order for the mother's protection. No further application was made by her or on her behalf.
5. I note, additionally, the mother proposed travelling together with the father as a family for overseas holidays in September 2025. As already observed, this does not sit comfortably with the mother's allegations that she was fearful of the father, or that she did not consider him to be safe.

1. I am satisfied that the children's best interests require that they be returned to their place of habitual residence, being Australia. They can return to the school chosen jointly by their parents, to their friendship groups, their community, their extracurricular activities, their extended paternal family and their familiar lives here.
2. If the mother also returns, the children can resume the shared care arrangement that had been in place for some time prior to the children's removal from Australia. The children would then spend Monday to Thursday with their mother each week, and time on a weekend each month, and would otherwise live with their father. That arrangement appeared generally to be working well prior to October 2025. As already noted, neither parent deposed to any significant difficulties experienced by either parent or either child in implementing that arrangement. It is the unchallenged evidence of the father that the children were doing well under that arrangement, and I am satisfied that, should the mother return to Australia, the children's best interests will be met by a return to that stable, secure and consistent parenting arrangement.
3. If the mother elects to remain in the UAE, the children's time with her will occur in Australia during school holidays. I accept the children will likely feel some distress and confusion if the mother elects to remain in the UAE and they live with their father in Australia. However, I am satisfied this distress and confusion can be appropriately managed by the father. It would also not be so unfamiliar for the children to be cared for by their father - as the mother has travelled outside of Australia on a number of occasions, leaving the children with their father for protracted periods. The return of the children to Australia would mean that the children would return to their stable and established lives here, which would likely provide them with significant comfort.
4. If the children were to remain living with the mother in City E, I have significant concerns that the children's relationships with their father would continue to be significantly eroded. The children have only been permitted to have limited, supervised time with their father since they were unilaterally removed from Australia. Such limited time would be confusing for the children, as they were previously routinely cared for by him, including for extended periods when their mother travelled abroad.
5. Reduced and supervised time would likely diminish the children's attachment to their father, as they would be unable to enjoy outings together, and the father would be substantially excluded from the children's everyday lives. The father's ability to participate in the children's school life would be limited. I accept the father's evidence as to the level of his engagement with the children, and his full participation in their lives prior to them being wrongfully removed by their mother.
6. The children would also be unlikely to spend time with their father overnight. This would prevent the father from participating in the children's nighttime routines including feeding the children, reading to them, undertaking homework together, putting them to bed, and other similar activities that are important in strengthening parent/child bonds.
7. Conversely, if the children reside in Australia, they will be able to maintain a meaningful relationship with each of their parents. As already observed, even if the mother remains living outside Australia, the father's proposals include orders for the children to spend holidays and special occasions with their mother, and for regular communication to take place. I note the father's evidence that he is not permitted to reside in the UAE, as he does not have a visa.
8. Accordingly, as I have already said, I am satisfied that the children's best interests are met by orders that require they be returned forthwith to Australia and live with their father.

1. The father deposed that the parties generally work cooperatively regarding the children. There were some occasions where they disagreed and became frustrated with each other. However, generally they have both appeared to prioritise the children.
2. Given what has occurred since September 2025, however, there has clearly been a significant breakdown in the co-parenting relationship between the parties. I accept that the father would now have very little trust in the mother, given her actions. In the circumstances, I accept it would be very difficult for the parties to make joint decisions at this time regarding the children's long-term care issues. Accordingly, there is little utility in making an order that the parties jointly make such decisions.
3. Moreover, if the mother determines to remain in the UAE and the children are residing in Australia with their father, as a matter of practicality, it would make sense for the father to have sole responsibility to make decisions for the children.
4. Notably, the father is not seeking to exclude the mother from the decision-making process entirely. The orders he proposes provide a mechanism for the mother to be involved in the decision-making, but enable the father to make a final call in the event the parties cannot reach an agreement.
5. I am satisfied that the orders proposed by the father are in the children's best interests given the matters I have set out in these reasons.

1. The orders for communication that I am asked to make on behalf of the father are also appropriate. The children's communication with each parent will be as requested by the children, and at other times as agreed. If the parents cannot agree, the call shall occur each alternate day. This will enable the children to have frequent communication with each of their parents.
2. The parents are to communicate with each other using SMS or email. They must also keep each other informed as to where they are living, and provide the other with telephone numbers and email addresses. These are sensible and clearly appropriate orders.

1. Currently, the children have temporary Australian passports. They expire in May 2026. The children are not citizens of the UAE. The father proposes that he be able to obtain Australian passports for the children, and that he holds those passports and the children's original birth certificates.
2. In circumstances where I am satisfied the mother has obtained passports for the children fraudulently, used those passports to wrongfully remove and then wrongfully retain the children outside the Commonwealth of Australia, I am satisfied that the father's proposed orders are appropriate.
3. In all the circumstances, I am also satisfied it is appropriate to restrain the mother from applying for or obtaining any passport of any country on behalf of either child.

1. Similarly, given the history of this matter, it is appropriate that an airport watch list order be made. In all the circumstances, I am satisfied that this should be in place until further order or until each of the children turns 18 years old. The children are young. It will be clear from these reasons that the Court is deeply troubled by the mother's unilateral actions in obtaining a passport and removing the children from Australia. The Court also has concern that in the absence of any explanation by her as to her actions, further efforts could be made by her in the future to remove the children.

1. The father's proposals include that the parents keep each other informed as to medical emergencies, serious illnesses or injuries suffered by the children. These are all appropriate orders.
2. Similarly, the father's proposals that each parent be kept abreast in relation to the children's education, sporting and extracurricular activities are also appropriate and clearly in the children's best interests.

Mother to consent to travel ban being cancelled

1. The mother has obtained a watch list order in the UAE, or a travel ban, which prevents the children from leaving that country. Accordingly, my orders will require the mother to consent to that travel ban being cancelled so that the children can leave the UAE and return to Australia.

1. I am also prepared to make the orders as sought by the father to assist in the enforcement of these orders in the UAE. In particular, the father sought orders that in the event the mother does not facilitate the children's return to Australia, he be at liberty to seek the enforcement of the orders of this Court in the UAE. Those are obviously appropriate orders.

1. I also make an order for the father to serve a copy of these orders and this judgment on the mother by sending same to the two email addresses she appears to be using. She has not filed a Notice of Address for Service but both email addresses appear to have been regularly used by the mother to communicate with the father, and with her own lawyers.

1. To ensure the mother and children are able to return to Australia with as little uncertainty as possible, the father has indicated the mother can return to the former matrimonial home. He is prepared for her to live there for a short period until she obtains alternate accommodation for herself and the children. I have included a notation that would permit the mother to return to that property with the children, if she returns to Australia, and she can then remain there until the end of March 2026. The father has said he will meet the outgoings on the home during that time. I understand the father intends to sell the property thereafter. That property, I understand, is in his sole name.

1. Lastly - I am asked to abridge to the time in which the parties may institute an appeal against these orders. As already observed, this order was not in the father's Further Amended Initiating Application. It was included in the Joint Minute of Orders sought that was sent to the mother by email on 12 January 2026. Accordingly, she is on notice that such an order would be sought.
2. Pursuant to r 13.03 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) ("the Rules"), a Notice of Appeal must be filed within 28 days of a Court decision. Ordinarily, the mother would therefore have until 12 February 2026.
3. Rule 15.06(1) permits the Court to shorten or extend a time that is fixed under the Rules.
4. It is the father's assertion that the finality or otherwise of these proceedings will be very relevant to any application the father may agitate in the City E courts. It is the father's case that my determination will not be regarded as final until the expiration of any appeal period. It is his further assertion that he intends to appeal the decision made in the City E courts, with such appeal to be filed by 22 January 2026. He seeks to provide the City E courts with these reasons and my orders.
5. I am satisfied that the interests of justice do require me to abridge the time in which the parties may file a Notice of Appeal against this decision. In particular, I note the father's assertion that if the time to appeal has not lapsed by the time the matter returns to the City E courts, the proceedings under the Act in this country will not be considered final. In those circumstances, he says his appeal is far less likely to be entertained, and the likelihood that the orders of this Court could be enforced would be significantly diminished. These submissions were based on the evidence of Mr L, advocate in the UAE. The mother has not adduced any evidence to contradict that given by Mr L as to the consideration likely to be given to the City E courts if this judgment is not considered to be "final".
6. I accept that the abridged time does put some pressure on each party to promptly file a Notice of Appeal should they wish to do so. However, I am satisfied that neither party is unduly prejudiced by the shortening of the period. This is because pursuant to r 13.10 of the Rules, a party can amend a Notice of Appeal without permission of the Court at any time up to and including the date fixed for the filing of the summary of argument by the appellant. Accordingly, either party can file a Notice of Appeal by 22 January 2026 and they will have ample opportunity to amend the Notice of Appeal thereafter, should they wish to do so.
7. Moreover, the time pressures have arisen substantially because of the mother's failure to comply with the earlier orders of this Court requiring her to return the children to Australia and restraining her from pursuing orders regarding the care of the children outside Australia. Had she complied with the anti-suit injunction, the father would not be required to file an appeal in the UAE by 22 January 2026. Essentially, the time pressures are as a result of the mother's actions.
8. Conversely, the father has not delayed these proceedings in any way. He brought the application immediately upon learning the children had been unilaterally removed from Australia. He filed his documents in accordance with the trial directions. He has attended each of the Court hearings. It would, in my view, be unfairly prejudicial to the father - and his ability to agitate in the City E courts for the return of the children to Australia as I have determined to be in their best interests - if the time to file a Notice of Appeal was not abridged.
9. However, I am not satisfied that any appeal needs to be filed by 19 January 2026. That would allow the mother only two working days to instruct solicitors to file a Notice of Appeal. Rather, I am satisfied the appropriate timeframe is to abridge the period to 22 January 2026. That effectively gives the parties seven days, rather than 28 days, which they would otherwise have been allowed.
10. And for these reasons, I make the orders as set out.

I certify that the preceding one hundred and eighty-three (183) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Carter.