Tokens: 7
.
We
are
unable
to
accept
this
view
,
which
does
not
in
our
opinion
do
justice
to
the
decision
or
reasoning
of
the
national
courts
.
As
to
the
certificate
,
we
note
that
the
opinion
of
the
psychologist
was
confined
to
the
harm
to
the
child
which
would
flow
from
an
immediate
separation
from
her
mother
.
The
certificate
did
not
directly
address
the
question
of
the
child
’s
return
or
suggest
that
it
would
be
in
any
way
harmful
if
E.
were
to
return
to
Australia
accompanied
by
her
mother
.
The
Regional
Court
did
not
refuse
or
fail
to
take
the
certificate
into
account
.
On
the
contrary
,
it
emphasised
that
the
certificate
concerned
only
the
issue
of
the
separation
of
mother
and
child
,
which
was
a
matter
relating
to
custody
rights
which
fell
to
be
determined
not
by
the
Latvian
courts
as
the
courts
of
the
requested
State
,
but
exclusively
by
the
Australian
courts
.
Having
regard
to
the
certificate
’s
contents
,
we
see
no
justification
for
the
view
expressed
in
the
judgment
that
the
Regional
Court
should
have
gone
further
by
submitting
the
document
for
cross
-
examination
,
still
less
that
it
should
have
ordered
a
second
expert
opinion
of
its
own
motion
.
Labels: O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O