Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice & Salo [2025] FedCFamC1F 567 (19 August 2025)

(a) purchasing three flight tickets on the same flight, for the children and for himself, from Sydney Airport, Sydney NSW to the United Kingdom, with such flight to depart on or before 26 August 2025, or other date as agreed by the applicant (noting the England school term commences in the week of 1 September 2025); and

(b) providing the applicant with a copy of the flight tickets booked in compliance with Order 2(a).

1. Forthwith upon becoming aware of the date of the flight details in Order 2(a) the father inform the respondent mother ("the mother") of the date, time and location at which the children are to be presented, for handover into the care of the father.
2. The mother ensure the children and the children's clothes, medication and other belongings, are presented on the time and date, and at the location as advised by the applicant in accordance with Order 3.
3. The father or his nominee authorised in writing is permitted to collect the children's passports from the applicant at the Suburb D Community Service Centre, at E Street, Suburb D immediately upon receipt of a sealed copy of this Order. The father is at liberty to hold the children's passports in his possession and use them to facilitate the children's travel to the United Kingdom.
4. Pending the children's departure from Australia for return to the United Kingdom, the mother be restrained and an injunction issued restraining her from:

(a) causing or permitting or suffering the children or either of them to be removed from the Commonwealth of Australia and in this regard all officers of the Australian Federal Police be directed to enforce, if required, the provisions of such Order;

(b) cancelling any passport held by the children or applying for any further or other passport or passports for the children;

(c) causing or permitting or suffering the children or either of them to reside anywhere other than her present residential address or any other residence at which the applicant has agreed that the said children may reside.

1. The mother be and is hereby restrained from being at or within 5 kilometres of Sydney Airport, from the date on which handover of the children occurs until the date on which she receives written confirmation that the children have departed Australia in accordance with Order 11.
2. Order 6 of these orders remain in force until the letter ("the letter") from the applicant is received by the Australian Federal Police advising of the travel arrangements made for the children's return to the United Kingdom.
3. In so far as Order 3 of the orders made on 28 March 2025 relates to the children that Order be discharged upon receipt of the letter from the applicant AND IT IS REQUESTED that the Australian Federal Police remove the name of the children, X, born 2013 and Y born 2014 from the Airport Watch List upon presentation for boarding the nominated flight to the United Kingdom on the date nominated for the said travel nominated in the letter from the applicant.
4. In so far as Orders 3 and 4 of the orders made 28 March 2025 relate to the mother they be discharged 24 hours after receipt of the letter from the applicant referred to in Order 8, AND IT IS REQUESTED the Australian Federal Police forthwith thereafter remove the name of the mother, Ms Salo born 1980, from the Airport Watch List
5. The applicant is to advise the Registrar of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, the mother and the Independent Children's Lawyer, in writing, that the children have departed Australia, within 24 hours of the departure having occurred.
6. A sealed copy of these orders be provided forthwith to the Marshal of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, the Commissioner of the Federal Police and the police forces and services of the states and territories of the Commonwealth of Australia and the Secretary of the Commonwealth Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.
7. The Marshal of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia and the Commissioner and all federal agents of the Australian Federal Police and officers of the police forces and services of the states and territories of the Commonwealth of Australia are requested and empowered to take all necessary steps to give effect to these orders.
8. The Independent Children's Lawyer is to explain these orders to the children, and, for that purpose, the mother is to facilitate the children meeting with the Independent Children's Lawyer at a time and date as directed by the Independent Children's Lawyer.
9. The appointment of the Independent Children's Lawyer is discharged upon compliance with Order 14.
10. Liberty is reserved to the parties to apply urgently in relation to the implementation of these Orders.
11. All applications are otherwise dismissed.

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 application is brought by the Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice ("the applicant") on 26 March 2025 seeking the return of the children X, born 2013 and Y born 2014 to United Kingdom pursuant to the provisions of the Family Law (Child Abduction Convention) Regulations 1986 (Cth) ("the Regulations").
2. The respondent is the mother of the children.
3. The requesting parent is the father. He lives in the United Kingdom.
4. The children were both born in Sydney and moved with their parents to the United Kingdom in around early 2018. The parents separated around 2018 according to the father and 2019 according to the mother. The parents engaged in parenting proceedings in the United Kingdom and orders were made by consent in November 2020 and varied by consent in July 2022. Both sets of orders provided for the children live in a shared-care arrangement with each of their parents on a week-about basis.
5. Additionally, and also by consent both sets of orders provided for the father to retain the children's passports, and to provide them to the mother for the purposes of travelling abroad. It is common ground that after the Covid pandemic, there were occasions the mother travelled with the children around Europe for the purposes of holidays.
6. It is common ground that the mother travelled with the children to Australia by agreement, leaving the United Kingdom on 22 December 2024, for a holiday. The agreement was that the mother would return with the children on 6 January 2025. However, the mother reneged on that agreement and has retained the children in Australia since that time.
7. The application for return was filed on 26 March 2025.
8. The mother appeared on her own behalf, having determined not to engage legal representation despite having had the opportunity to do so. In accordance with Re F: Litigants in Person Guidelines [2001] FamCA 348; (2001) FLC 93-072 the mother was given a detailed explanation as to how the proceedings would be conducted and provided with the opportunity to challenge the father's evidence by way of cross examination.

1. The applicant relied upon the following documents:

(a) Form 2 Application filed 26 March 2025;

(b) affidavit of Miriam Milivojevic filed 11 August 2025

(c) outline of case document filed 11 August 2025.

1. The mother relied upon the following documents:

(a) Form 2A Cross Application filed 5 June 2025;

(b) affidavit of the mother filed 14 April 2025;

(c) affidavit of Ms F filed 22 March 2025;

(d) statement of the mother dated 26 March 2025; and

(e) statement of the mother dated 27 July 2025.

1. The Independent Children's Lawyer relied on the Regulation 26 report dated 18 June 2026.
2. Each of the exhibits to the affidavits was admitted into evidence. In addition, a number of documents were also tendered as follows:

(a) WhatsApp messages between Ms Salo and Mr C dated 16 July, 8 August and 10 August 2025;

(b) an email from Mr J (AFP) 13 August 2025;

(c) a letter from G Clinic dated 4 March 2019;

(d) a letter from Ms H (a social worker) dated 25 June 2020;

(e) an undated email from Mr C to the maternal grandmother;

(f) Ms Salo's healthcare records ranging from 2017 to 2020; and

(g) a letter from K Clinic dated 20 January 2022.

1. The matter proceeded by way of an online hearing. There were some minor technical difficulties from time to time with the mother's audio connection, but these were able to be overcome, and I am satisfied I was able to hear the mother's submissions and her evidence.
2. The father was cross examined, as was the mother. No other witness was required to give evidence.

1. There is no dispute as to the jurisdictional facts or as to the date of retention. It is agreed as follows:

(a) the children were habitually resident in the United Kingdom as at 22 December 2024;

(b) the parents agreed that the mother could travel with the children to Australia, the basis that the children would be returned to the United Kingdom on 6 January 2025 where they would resume school;

(c) the mother and children left the United Kingdom on 22 December 2024 and arrived in Australia on 24 December 2024;

(d) the mother did not return the children as agreed. She now proposes that the children remain living with her in Australia on a permanent basis;

(e) the father had rights of custody regarding the children which he was exercising immediately prior to the children's retention in Australia and the retention was in breach of those rights of custody;

(f) the application was made within 1 year of the children's retention in Australia; and

(g) the children are under 16 years of age.

1. I am satisfied the jurisdictional facts have been established and the children wrongfully retained in Australia from 6 January 2025.

1. Upon establishment of the jurisdictional pre-requisites to a return Order, there are limited circumstances or exceptions to return which may be relevant in response to an application to return the children to their country of habitual residence. Those regulatory exceptions must be read in the context of the fundamental obligation to return the child.
2. It is the mother's case that pursuant to r 16(3)(b) of the Regulations there is a grave risk that the return of the children would expose them to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place them in an intolerable situation. She said the grave risk to the children arose in the context of her having been the victim of family violence, comprising physical, emotional and financial abuse, and coercive control, perpetrated by the father during the relationship. She said the financial abuse and controlling behaviours continued post separation and were ongoing.
3. The mother said having endured family violence in the United Kingdom at the hands of the father, she is unable to contemplate a return to the United Kingdom - which she said would adversely impact her health and wellbeing. The mother was clear that she will not accompany the children in the event their return is ordered. It is her case that the children's separation from her in the event of an Order for return would cause the children psychological harm or otherwise place them in an intolerable situation.
4. In addition, the mother asserted the father suffers from poor health and consumes alcohol to excess which she said undermined his ability to care for the children. She said accordingly, if the children were returned to the United Kingdom, in the absence of the mother, this would expose them to a grave risk of harm or otherwise be intolerable.
5. The mother conceded she did not raise any other exception to return.

1. The leading authority in Australia pertaining to this regulatory exception is DP v. Commonwealth Central Authority; JLM v. Director-General, NSW Department of Community Services (2001) 206 CLR 401. In that case their Honours Gaudron, Gummow and Hayne JJ observed [39] inter alia that:

(a) the onus of proof lies on the party opposing return;

(b) that party must demonstrate there is a grave risk of the children being exposed to certain types of harm or otherwise placed in an intolerable situation;

(c) this requires some prediction, based on the evidence of what might occur upon the children's return;

(d) the inquiry will inevitably involve some consideration of the children's best interests;

(e) the party claiming the exception does not have to establish there is certainty that the children will be exposed to harm. However, the Court must be persuaded that there is a risk of such exposure to harm which warrants the qualitative description "grave";

(f) the Court will generally require clear and compelling evidence to be so persuaded. Indeed, "[t]he bare assertion, by the person opposing return, of fears for the child may well not be sufficient to persuade the Court that there is a real risk of exposure to harm";

(g) the words in the exception are to be given their ordinary meaning and there is no requirement to read the regulation "broadly" or "narrowly"; and

(h) the harm must be more than the disruption, uncertainty and anxiety likely to be experienced by children who have been wrongfully removed and then required to return.

1. It is, accordingly, for the mother to persuade me that the predicted risk of the children being exposed to physical or psychological harm, or placed in an intolerable situation in the event of their return to the United Kingdom is not only very real, but "grave". As observed in Wolford & Attorney-General's Department (Cth) [2014] FamCAFC 197 at [57] and [62], whilst the word "grave" characterises the level of risk rather than the seriousness of the harm, "there is in ordinary language a link between the two".

The mother's allegations of family violence and coercive control

1. There were significant deficiencies in the quality of the mother's evidence regarding family violence and coercive control. In particular, there was little detail and a lack of specificity in the mother's material regarding the allegations - with her affidavit and supporting statements containing bald assertions and conclusions, with almost no dates or specific details of the alleged abuse.
2. The father denied all allegations of violence and abuse.
3. The mother relied on a letter from G Clinic dated 4 March 2019. The mother attended that service for counselling sessions in around early 2019. In that letter it was reported that the mother had:

...continued to show remarkable emotional resilience at what you describe as a stressful and difficult divorce. You have given me an outline of the situation you are in, and described to me how you are feeling bullied, coerced and manipulated by your husband. You deeply fear he will attempt to take your two children from you and that you'll be homeless or forced back to Australia.

1. There appears to be some disconnect between the description given in 2019 by the mother of being bullied, coerced and manipulated with the statement the mother now makes that she "suffered the most horrific abuse". It is also difficult to reconcile the concern the mother is said to have expressed in March 2019 that she may be "forced back to Australia" with her assertion now that she was held in the United Kingdom for seven years against her will.
2. The mother also tendered medical records. There were some references in those records to the mother having referred to the father taking the children's passports, to him having been "abusive" and there having been a "history of violence". Again, none of the allegations of violence and abuse are specific. They are also based on the mother's self-report.
3. It is clear that the period around separation was difficult and stressful. The mother's medical records refer to the mother being tearful, worried the father will have her sent back to Australia without the children, and to the father having the children's passports. However, this adds little to the mother's assertion that if the children are returned to the United Kingdom now there is a grave risk that they will be exposed to harm.
4. The mother's assertion that the father poses a risk to the children moving forward, as a result of his violence and abuse of her, needs to be seen in the context of the proceedings in the United Kingdom, and the orders made there, by consent, regarding the ongoing shared-care of the children.
5. Initially following the parents' separation, the parenting arrangement in place from January 2019 was for a shared-care arrangement broken up across a two-week cycle. The parents were then engaged in two sets of proceedings regarding inter alia the care arrangements for the children in the United Kingdom. Each party made claims in those proceedings that the other had subjected them to violence and abuse.
6. The first of those proceedings commenced in 2020. There was a period the father prevented the children's time with their mother at the outset of the Covid-19 pandemic. The father also raised concerns at that time as to the mother having mental health issues. The mother asserted the withholding of the children and the father's complaints as to her mental health were acts of violence.
7. Notwithstanding, orders were made, by consent in November 2020 at the Family Court in City B implementing a week about arrangement. Importantly, at the time those consent orders were made the Court had the benefit of a Scott schedule. In that document is it recorded that the mother asserted the father physically assaulted her in mid-2017, strangling her. That was denied by the father. The allegations of financial abuse were also denied by the father, as were the allegations of emotional abuse and coercive control. The father made counter allegations of family violence perpetrated by the mother against him.
8. The Court also had the benefit of a section 7 report from CAFCASS completed on 28 October 2020. In that detailed report the writer sets out the history and issues in dispute, and the allegations and counter allegations each parent made about the other and the investigations undertaken in response. The children were interviewed and observed with their parents. Neither child raised any safety concerns. They were described as having loving relationships with their parents, and happy in their care. The writer determined that "there is no evidence that either child is at significant risk whilst being cared for by either parent".
9. In relation to the allegations by each parent of physical and other abuse, the writer stated "[t]here is no evidence of this". Both parents were assessed as having exposed the children to their arguments as the marriage came to an end, and the father was criticised for having prevented the children seeing their mother for a short period at the outbreak of the pandemic. The writer recommended that the parents continue to have the shared-care of the children as she did not find that there were risks to the children in the care of either parent. She concluded:

...the only harm the children are experiencing is due to their parents' acrimonious relationship. I am therefore recommending that both parents are offered early help support around parental conflict, healthy relationships and supporting children with anxiety. This will ensure that the children are not continued to be exposed to the acrimonious relationship or continue to be drawn into private law proceedings.

1. The recitals to the 6 November 2020 consent orders record that the parents had agreed to the father holding the children's passports, with him to make then available to the mother to travel abroad with the children upon the provision to him of details of the proposed trip. The recitals also refer to the mother having the ability to travel to Australia with the children.
2. Additionally, the recitals refer to both of the parents having raised allegations of family violence, and that no findings had been made and "both parties therefore agreeing to move past these issues and accepting they cannot raise issues that pre-date this order as a means to justify any change in the future to these arrangements". Notwithstanding the contents of the Scott schedule, the Court further confirmed "there are no safeguarding concerns" in relation to either parent. The final recital states that the mother confirms "she has no intention to permanently remove the children" from the United Kingdom and that it would be a breach of the law should she do so.
3. The orders then provided for the parents to have the care of the children on a week on/week off basis. There were additional orders for special occasions, and for travel, including that the mother can travel with the children to Australia upon providing the father with 12 months' notice in advance and details of the flights four weeks in advance.
4. There was further dispute regarding the implementation of the orders and the matter returned to the Family Court at City B in 2022. The parents attended that Court in mid-2022 - each appearing in person. Further orders were made that day, again by consent, finalising the matter.
5. The recitals to the July 2022 orders included a statement that it would be a criminal offence to take a child out of the United Kingdom without the consent of both parents or an Order of the court. The consent orders again provided for the children to live with the parents on a week about arrangements, and for the passports to remain in the father's care. The mother was to provide the father with at least one month's notice of any intention to take the children out of the jurisdiction. Orders were made for the Christmas period.
6. I do not accept the mother's characterisation of the father's retention of the children's passports as being evidence of efforts to control her or that he 'used the children as pawns' as she asserts. The mother was able to access the passports to travel. That the father held the passports in circumstances where there were some concerns the mother might attempt to relocate the children is neither unusual nor untoward.
7. Nor do I accept the mother's assertion that the implementation of a shared-care arrangement was evidence of the father's desire to "use and control" the mother. The orders were made by consent. They were supported by the social worker. There is no suggestion that the arrangements were not working well, or that the children were other than settled and content with that arrangement.
8. In relation to the mother's assertion that the father subjected her to financial abuse the allegations regarding the period of the parties' relationship were largely unparticularised. The mother's allegations as to post separation behaviour she said amounted to financial abuse included:

(a) that the father did not refund her costs for the children's extra curricular activities;

(b) the father made her reimburse him for lost clothing items he had purchased;

(c) the father had made an application for child maintenance through the relevant authorities in the United Kingdom seeking a contribution from her; and

(d) the father sought a property settlement in the Family Law Courts in the United Kingdom.

1. I also note that in the mother's two statements tendered as exhibits M5 and M6, the mother criticises the father for the week about arrangements, suggesting he sought those arrangements to negatively financially impact the mother.
2. I do not accept that the complaints outlined by the mother can be characterised as financial abuse. Nor do I accept that the implementation of a shared-care regime is evidence of financial abuse by the father.
3. At the hearing before me, the mother now asserts she did not pursue the family violence allegations in the United Kingdom Courts as she did not want to prolong legal processes there. It is difficult to reconcile that evidence with her agreement to final orders in 2020 and in 2022 to a shared-care regime, and with her proposal even at this juncture that a shared-care regime continue to be the arrangements for the children if they remain in Australia.
4. Moreover, the mother's evidence was that:

(a) since the father has been in Australia, arriving on about mid-2025, by consent the children have spent time with him travelling in a campervan during the school holidays for almost three weeks;

(b) the parents have now reinstated the week about shared are arrangement; and

(c) if the father was to remain in Australia, the mother would propose the children continue to live with the parents on a week-about basis.

1. The mother also sought to travel to the United Kingdom herself on about 4 July 2025. That was to see a terminally ill close family friend. Regrettably she was unable to travel due to orders of this Court prohibiting same. It is notable, however, that she was prepared to leave the children in their father's care whilst she would be out of the country.
2. That is, the mother's own admissions and actions make it plain she does not regard the children as being at risk in the care of their father and that she regards the shared-care arrangement as being in the children's best interests.

1. Whilst not required for cross examination, I put no significant weight on the affidavit of Ms F, the mother's sister. It is apparent that much of her evidence is a recitation of complaints made to her by the mother rather than matters she has herself observed. The only relevant matters that she observed herself is in relation to the period prior to the family moving to the United Kingdom. That is, more than seven years ago. Ms F said she heard the father "yelling and fighting" with the mother, and that on "one occasion I heard him physically attacking her". There are no particulars given. Ms F also referred to the father's alcohol consumption, to which I will shortly turn.

1. The mother's evidence is that she and children have recently observed the father shaking, and that he has also vomited on occasion. In addition, the mother said the father consumes alcohol to excess.
2. The father acknowledged he experiences adrenal fatigue, which can result in his speech being slurred and he can experience some shaking. He said the symptoms are exacerbated by stressful situations and that he otherwise manages the condition with ensuring he gets adequate sleep and maintains a healthy lifestyle. He said he is appropriately engaged with medical practitioners in the United Kingdom for the management of these issues. The father acknowledged he vomited when he had the children with him recently on holidays. He said he contracted a "stomach bug" which he caught off one of the children who had similarly been unwell.
3. It is apparent the father's adrenal issues are chronic. The mother referred in her cross examination to the father experiencing symptoms of adrenal fatigue in 2017, and that one of the reasons the family relocated to the United Kingdom was so the father could recover. Despite the condition being long standing the mother does not specifically depose to any incident or event where the father's ability to parent the children was compromised as a result save to say he was shaking and vomited on a recent contact visit.
4. The shared-care arrangement for the children has, by agreement, been in place for in excess of five years. That the mother continues to support this arrangement strongly suggests the mother is not concerned that the father's condition impairs his parenting ability.
5. As to the father's alcohol consumption being problematic, this was not deposed to by the mother and only raised in her oral evidence. The father's alcohol consumption does not appear to have been raised by the mother as a concern in the medical records she tendered which spanned from June 2017 to November 2020. Nor is there any reference to the mother having concerns in this regard in the letter from the social workers who were engaged with the mother in the United Kingdom.
6. The only reference in the mother's material to the father drinking is in the affidavit of Ms F in which it was asserted the father "would often have drinking binges that would leave him bedridden and unable to function for the next day or two". This related to a period prior to April 2018.
7. The father denied drinking to excess.
8. The mother has consented to - and continues to propose - a shared-care regime, which would suggest she also does not regard the father's alcohol consumption as problematic. Indeed, the mother's proposal for a continued shared-care arrangement - if the father remains in Australia - undermines her assertion that she is "extremely concerned about the implications of him being able to care for the children".

1. I have the benefit of a Regulation 26 report prepared by a Court child expert. Interestingly neither child understood that their mother wanted to remain with them in Australia indefinitely and suggested their mother wanted to stay "a bit longer" or "for a few more months".
2. The children raised no concerns in that report regarding their safety in the care of either parent. They both expressed content as to the week about arrangements whilst in the United Kingdom. They spoke positively about both parents.
3. It was clear that neither child objected to being returned to the United Kingdom, although they felt it was 'more fair' to their mother if they could stay longer in Australia. Y's complaints regarding the United Kingdom were minor, relating to the weather and some complaints regarding his teachers and a dispute with a peer. Neither child expressed a view that they wanted to remain living in Australia permanently despite the mother's assertion that she wants to remain here now because "that's what the children want" and she wants "to support them".
4. It appears Y has been exposed to some aspects of the adult dispute - referring to the father having taken the children's passports "and made us stay". He also expressed concern that the father would not let the children return to Australia again - which was not the father's evidence before me - and that his mother might get arrested if she returned to the United Kingdom. He was worried the mother would "spend the rest of her life in jail".
5. Both children reported missing their father.
6. As to the impact on the children in the event they were separated from their mother both boys reported they would miss their mother. X said he would be sad if his mother did not return to the United Kingdom. He said that not being able to see his mother would make him feel "just as sad as not seeing Dad". Y said if he had to return to the United Kingdom without his mother "I would be fine if Mum had to stay here, as long as she does not have to go to jail".
7. The mother, in her closing, asserted that the children were "scared" of their father. This was not contained in her affidavit or either statement. Nor was it reflected in the children's statements to the report writer.

CONCLUSION AS TO GRAVE RISK AND INTOLERABLE SITUATION

1. The evidence upon which the mother relies falls well short of being clear and compelling. Taking the mother's assertions even at their highest, individually or as a whole does not enable me to make a finding that the level of the predicted risk to the children if they are returned to the United Kingdom could be categorised as grave, nor that the situation upon the return of the children would be intolerable.
2. Many of the mother's allegations were vague and unparticularised. Her concerns substantially pre-date the mother's agreement in the United Kingdom to a shared-care arrangement first reflected in a court Order made in 2020. The alleged concerns are inconsistent with the mother's agreement to the reimplementation and continuation of the shared-care arrangement provided the family remain in Australia. There was no evidence adduced by the mother that suggested the shared-care arrangement had been problematic for the children, their wellbeing or safety - save for saying that the father had recently been shaking and vomiting on an occasion he had the children in his care. The father's evidence provided a plausible explanation for this.
3. The mother's assertion that the father strangled her in mid-2017 is a serious allegation. It was brought to the attention of child protection and the courts in the United Kingdom and investigated by child protection. The social worker engaged in 2020 determined there were no risk issues for the children and supported a shared-care arrangement. The court made orders for equal time by consent. There is no other allegation that the children have been subject to or exposed to any family violence at least since the parties' separation in or around 2019.
4. In relation to the allegations of financial abuse, I am not satisfied that the matters relied upon by the mother can be properly characterised as financial abuse. The matters raised by the mother in the Scott schedule are all plausibly explained by the father's response. At any rate, the mother's concerns in this regard do not assist her in establishing a grave risk of harm to the children, nor to establish a return would place the children in an intolerable situation.
5. The mother's assertion that the father kept her and the children in the United Kingdom against their will cannot be made out on the evidence before me. The father's retention of the children's passports was an arrangement made by consent despite the mother's refusal to acknowledge that under cross examination. The mother did admit that whilst in the United Kingdom, the father had provided her with the children's passports when requested, enabling her and the children to take several holidays abroad, as well as travelling to Australia in late 2024. The mother did not adduce any evidence that she had made other requests to the father to holiday in Australia or elsewhere which the father rejected.
6. I accept the father prevented the children from seeing the mother at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic. I also accept he expressed concern regarding the mother's mental health to the relevant authorities in the United Kingdom. In circumstances where the mother's medical records tendered by her refer to the mother experiencing low mood and suicidal thoughts in late 2019 the father's reports may have been reasonable. This is not clear or compelling evidence of abuse or coercive control.
7. I have significant scepticism regarding the mother's assertion that she "fled" the United Kingdom at the first opportunity she had "after 7 years of being held against my will". Such an assertion appears to be inconsistent with the mother's evidence. I note:

(a) the mother acknowledged that when she left Australia with the children on 22 December 2024 this was for a holiday, only, and she intended to return;

(b) by around 20 January 2025 the mother's proposal was that she and the children would remain in Australia for 6 months and she would then return with them; and

(c) during cross examination the mother acknowledged she initially intended to return on 6 January 2025 and then changed her mind to want to stay for 6 months. She said she has changed her mind again - seeking to stay permanently - because that is what the children want and she is supporting their choice.

1. These matters do not support a finding that the mother left the United Kingdom n 22 December 2024 with the intention of "fleeing" from an abusive situation. It appears the mother has re-characterised the purpose and intention of her trip to Australia over time.
2. Moreover, the mother's evidence was inaccurate when she said the trip to Australia was the first opportunity the mother had to leave the United Kingdom. As already observed, the mother and children travelled on occasions throughout Europe post the parties' separation.
3. Even if the mother's historical allegations of abuse and coercive control were made out, the evidence falls well short of establishing that there is any real risk physically or psychologically to the children if they are returned to the United Kingdom. The children have been living in a shared-care arrangement since about early 2019. There is no evidence that they have been at risk in their father's care at any time. They made no complaints about their father's care to the authorities in the United Kingdom. Nor did they make any complaints to the Court child expert who prepared the report in these proceedings. The mother's assertion in her closing address that the children are fearful of their father has no basis. I repeat that the mother herself is content to reimplement the shared-care arrangement.
4. At any rate, there is a presumption that member states whose accession to the convention has been accepted by Australia will be capable of adequately protect children upon their return. To that end, I note there was nothing adduced by the mother that suggested that the authorities in the United Kingdom would not be properly equipped to make suitable arrangements for the children in the event of a return order.
5. The report writer opined that the children would likely feel considerable sadness and a sense of loss if the mother refuses to return to the United Kingdom. However, the evidence cannot support a finding that the children's distress at being separated from their mother would expose them to a grave risk of psychological harm or otherwise place them in an intolerable situation. To establish the exception, the mother must persuade me of more than this expected disruption, anxiety or upset. She has not.
6. The mother conceded she had no knowledge of there being any legal or practical impediments to her returning to the United Kingdom. She agreed she had made no enquiries to the relevant authorities in that regard. Rather, her refusal to return was at her own election. Whilst she said her well-being would be impacted if she was to return - and made reference to suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder - she adduced no evidence from any medical or allied health professionals to corroborate her assertions in this regard. I note the mother also sought to travel to the United Kingdom in July 2025 for a brief visit in sad circumstances, notwithstanding she now says she cannot contemplate a return. She also conceded under cross examination that she may travel to see the children during the summer holidays in the United Kingdom. The father's evidence was that he would facilitate the children's time with their mother.
7. Accordingly, this regulatory exception must fail. There is no need to consider the circumstances in which my discretion to return is enlivened.

1. It is common ground that in the event a return Order is made, that should be implemented as soon as practicable. X is due to commence high school in the United Kingdom on 3 September.
2. It is of some concern that despite having been ordered on 28 March 2025 to deliver the children's British passports to the Court, the mother has not done so. She said she had been "busy", that it had "slipped her mind" and that it was too far for her to travel to the Court to deliver them. She said it would take her about an hour and a half to travel to the Court.
3. The mother's excuses are not acceptable.
4. An Order was made on 14 August 2025 pursuant to which the mother was to deliver the children's passports to the applicant by 12 noon on 15 August 2025.
5. I am making an Order restraining the mother from endeavouring to secure passports for the children pending their return to the United Kingdom. This is in circumstances where the mother has recently sought the father's agreement to the children having Country L passports. For obvious reasons no further steps should be taken in that regard until the children are back in the United Kingdom. The parents can then decide whether this is an avenue they wish to pursue.
6. I am also making an Order restraining the mother from attending at or near the airport on the day of the children's departure. She will need to say her goodbyes to the children when she hands them over to their father. I am concerned that if the mother attended at the airport this could cause the children significant discomfort and distress as they prepare to board the aircraft.
7. The applicant advised the father was prepared to give an undertaking in these proceedings that he would not pursue criminal prosecution in the United Kingdom regarding the children's wrongful retention in Australia by the mother. I accept there are issues with the enforceability of that undertaking. However, in the context of this case - and particularly in light of the concerns expressed by Y - I am content to make my orders subject to the father having given that undertaking.
8. I otherwise make orders largely in accordance with the minute proposed by the applicant and supported by the Independent Children's Lawyer. The mother proposed no other orders in the event of a return Order being made.

I certify that the preceding eighty-seven (87) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Carter.