Urgent Recovery Application

Court:

Melbourne Federal Circuit and Family Law Court.

Facts:

This matter involved an urgent recovery application seeking that the child be returned immediately to the Applicant Father. Our client was the Applicant Father in this proceeding.

There is an extensive history of family violence and DFFH involvement in this matter. Both parties had a documented history of drug and alcohol abuse, and our client also had an extensive criminal history. After being removed from the Respondent Mother two years prior by the Department of Families Fairness and Housing, Child Protection (“the Department”), the child had been living with the Applicant Father. The Respondent Mother has been spending time with the child sporadically for the first year that the child lived with the Applicant Father and had chosen to cease initiating time for a year.

Five weeks prior to our involvement, the child had spend time with the Respondent Mother for a weekend (after a year of no contact) and upon the agreed time to return the child to the Applicant Father, the Respondent Mother refused. The Applicant Father made a report to DFFH and Victoria Police but was informed that a welfare check was conducted and it was determined that the child was not at risk while in the Respondent Mother’s care.

The Applicant Father engaged our services two days after the Respondent Mother refused to return the child. Our office sent the Respondent Mother an initial letter requesting that she return the child pending the parties agreeing on final parenting arrangements. Fourteen days later, our office sent the Respondent Mother a Notice of Intention, putting her on notice that we would commence proceedings if she did not return the child. Both letters were met with no response. Following this, our office filed an urgent Initiating Application for the recovery of the child in the Federal Circuit and Family Law Court and the matter was listed for a hearing within 7 days from the date our office filed court documents.

There were also Intervention Order proceedings (“IVO”) on foot against our client and his mother, as the Respondent Mother had made an application (listing the child as a protected person also) alleging that both our client and his mother posed a risk to her and the child. These applications were made on the day that our Notice of Intention was served on the Respondent Mother. There were allegations of risk against both parties and both had filed a notice of child abuse, family violence or risk. We alleged that the Respondent Mother posed a risk to the child with regards to her mental health concerns, drug abuse, and neglect of the child, as she did not send the child to school for approximately five weeks. The Respondent Mother made allegations against our client regarding historical family violence (physical and verbal) against the child and drug abuse. There is a history of family violence between the Respondent Mother and Applicant Father.