Source: https://www.incadat.com/en/case/995
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 15:08:08+00:00

Document:
Panayotides & Panayotides (1997) FLC 92-733; M.W. v. Director-General, Department of Community Services  HCA 12; Zafiropoulos and State Central Authority (2006) FLC 93-264; State Central Authority and De Blasio  FamCA 804; S.K. v. K.P.  3 NZLR 590; Punter v. Secretary for Justice  1 NZLR 40; Mozes v. Mozes (2001) 239 F.3d 1067; Re J. (a Minor) (Abduction: Custody Rights)  2 AC 562; Cooper & Casey (1995) FLC 92-575; D.W. v. Director-General, Department of Child Safety (2006) FLC 93-255; M. & M. (Abduction: England and Scotland)  2 FLR 263; Cameron & Cameron  SC 17; Dixon v. Dixon 1990 SCLR 692; D.P. & Commonwealth Central Authority; J.L.M. v. Director-General NSW Department of Community Services (2001) 206 CLR 401; De L. & Director General, N.S.W. Department of Community Services and Anor (1996) 187 CLR 640.
The application related to four boys who were aged 10, 7, 5 and 3 years at the time of the appellate hearing. Until May 2006 they had spent their entire lives in Israel with their married parents. The mother was Australian and she had relocated to Israel for the purposes of her marriage. In 2005 the parents' marriage encountered difficulties and in September 2005 the father moved out of the family home.
On 16 May 2006 the mother and children left Israel to travel to Australia. The father took them to the airport and a return to Israel was booked for 27 August 2006. The children commenced school in Sydney on 30 May 2006. There was disagreement between the parents as to the terms and conditions under which the mother left Israel with the children.
The mother asserted she left on an understanding that if the father advised her that the marriage was over, she would not be returning and would settle permanently with the children in Australia. The father asserted that the mother had left for a fixed period only and that he never consented to the children remaining away from Israel on any permanent basis.
In June 2006 the parents raised the possibility of divorce and the mother alleged that the father had stated that she and the children could remain in Australia. She stated to him at that time that she needed to remain in Australia for the remainder of the calendar year to consider their situation.
The mother duly did not return with the children on 27 August 2006. The father then attempted to secure a return by agreement and when that was not successful he subsequently invoked his rights under the Convention. On 29 August 2007 the Family Court of Australia ordered the return of the children, subject to undertakings:  FAMCA 1099. The mother appealed.
Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the retention was wrongful for the children had neither lost their Israeli habitual residence at the relevant date nor acquired a habitual residence in Australia. There was no grave risk of harm and whilst the father had at one stage consented to the relocation the trial judge had correctly exercised his discretion to make a return order.
The trial judge had preferred the mother's version of events, namely that that the proposed trip to Australia might well have been a one way trip and she did so with the father's full knowledge and consent. However, at some point shortly after the move the father adopted the view that he wanted the children back in Israel and he was no longer prepared to abide by any agreement he may have entered into for the mother to retain the children in Australia. On the balance of probabilities the mother had retained the children in Australia initially with the consent of the father but that consent had been withdrawn no later than July 2006.
The trial judge himself had raised the issue of the habitual residence of the children. He held that the circumstances had not existed to have led to the abandonment of the children's Israeli habitual residence. The correctness of this interpretation became the central issue of the appeal.
The mother argued that both on the basis of the settled purpose of the parents and on a broader enquiry into the facts it was clear the children's existing habitual residence was lost immediately upon departure from Israel.
The Full Court accepted that a habitual residence could be lost in a single day, for example upon departure from an initial abode with no intention to return. It noted that there was an apparent division in English case law to as to whether an individual must have a settled intention to take up a long term residence, or whether a settled purpose for the time being, even if of short duration, would be sufficient to acquire a habitual residence. Whilst it did not give a definitive view the Full Court indicated its preference for the latter view.
Referring to the Scottish case Cameron & Cameron  SC 17 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/UKs 71] the Full Court further accepted that in order to lose their habitual residence there was no requirement that the mother and children had to "cut their ties" with Israel on a permanent basis.
Reviewing the findings of the trial judge the Full Court concluded that he had been correct to rule that the children's habitual residence in Israel was not lost immediately upon departure from Israel. This was because it was then uncertain whether the requisite condition (the end of the marriage) would be fulfilled or not. Moreover, even if the condition were fulfilled the mother may still have returned.
As to whether the children's Israeli habitual residence was lost when the father informed the mother in June that the marriage was not going to continue, the Full Court found that the mother did not have to make a definitive decision at that time as to her future and that of the children, because the return ticket was booked for 27 August.
Furthermore, the father then made it clear within a very short time that he expected her to return to Israel with the children. Additionally uncontroverted evidence, from communication between the parties at that time, indicated that the communication to the mother that the marriage would not continue did not immediately trigger an expression by her of unequivocal intention to remain in Australia. The evidence was that the mother remained ambiguous about whether she would return.
In light of these uncertainties by the mother the trial judge had been correct to conclude that there was no point in time at which it could be said the parents had reached a mutual understanding that Israel was no longer to be the home of the children, both before and after communication to the mother of the father's intention that the marriage would not continue.
The trial judge was correct in finding that the mother did not have a settled intention to abandon her Israeli habitual residence prior to 27 August 2006 and even after that date it appeared there were grounds upon which, after 27 August 2006, the mother was prepared to contemplate returning to Israel, particularly if sufficient financial support were available. That is because the original condition having been fulfilled, the mother continued to be uncertain about whether she would return to Israel.
The mother argued in the alternative that the children had acquired a new habitual residence in Australia prior to the date of their wrongful retention, having spent an appreciable period of residence there. At trial it had been conceded that the retention occurred either upon the mother's failure to return the children to Israel on 27 August 2006, or, upon the mother communicating to the father finally in December 2006 that she did not intend to return to Israel.
In making her submission the mother sought to rely on New Zealand case law on habitual residence, most notably SK v KP  3 NZLR 590 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/NZ 816], which emphasised a broad factual inquiry in determining a child's habitual residence. She submitted that the trial judge had failed to undertake such an inquiry and had consequently ignored relevant factors showing the integration of the children into Australian life.
The Full Court held that the conduct of a broad factual inquiry to consider "the objective connection the children have with different states" on the question of habitual residence was not part of the law in Australia. Rather Australian case law had followed the follow the English approach in which a settled purpose was a necessary and integral part of a finding of habitual residence.
The Full Court declined to make a definitive ruling on the New Zealand approach, given that a majority in the New Zealand Court of Appeal had accepted the principle that a Court having jurisdiction should be slow to infer that there had been a loss of habitual residence arising from the prolonging of a child's stay in a new state beyond original expectations without protest or countering action, because of the desire to achieve a reconciliation or reach an agreement between parents on arrangements for custody.
The mother contended that, having found the father had consented to the children being removed from Israel and being retained in Australia, the trial judge had erred in failing to exercise his discretion to refuse to order their return. The Full Court found no error in the trial judge's finding the father's change of mind had the effect of making the retention of the children wrongful after July 2006.
The trial judge considered the arguments of both parents and weighed up the competing views as to whether it was appropriate for the mother and children to reside in Australia on a long-term basis against the effect that that would have on the opportunity for them to develop a meaningful relationship with their father and many other issues affecting their best interests. On balance, in what was clearly a finely balanced case, he determined that, provided reasonable financial arrangements could be made within a reasonable time, a return order should be made.
The trial judge rejected the argument that the return of the children to Israel would expose them to physical harm on the basis that this would be effectively to return them to a war zone.
The only evidence supporting the contention was a travel advisory notice issued by the Australian government. This was dismissed by the trial judge who noted that there were five levels of travel advice and the recommendation "to exercise a high degree of caution in Israel" this was only the third level. He noted that similar advice was proffered in relation to a number of Hague Convention countries including Brazil, Mexico, Panama, South Africa, Turkey and Venezuela.
This finding was not challenged on appeal. The mother did seek to make a new argument that there would be a grave risk arising from severe economic hardship. The Full Court found that the evidence did not support such a submission, but noted in any event that the economic concerns of the mother had been addressed at trial though the impositions of conditions on the applicant father.
The Full Court upheld the orders framed by the trial judge which were designed to ameliorate the economic effect of the return of the children on the mother as well as achieving a balance between her reasonable demands and the "claims of a father unable to meet them."
The trial judge had noted that the mother needed enough money to live on until she could approach an Israeli court for some urgent relief. He made orders which met that condition, including the provision of airfares and accommodation. If these were not complied with by the applicant father the return order would lapse.
The decision of the Full Court was overturned by the High Court: L.K. v. Director-General Department of Community Services  HCA 9 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/AU 995]. The High Court ruled that too great an emphasis had been placed on the mother's settled intention and that in the light of all the circumstances the children had lost their habitual residence in Israel.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.