Family Court: 9 month baby allowed to travel to China

Family Court: 9 month baby allowed to travel to China

A mother was allowed to take her 9 month old baby to China by the Family Court recently, despite opposition by the father, who feared that the baby would not be returned.

The mother told the court that the baby was travelling to China to be with the maternal grandparents during Chinese New Year.

The Family Court in Gin and Hing followed earlier principles in  Line and Line (1997) about whether to allow children to travel overseas:

(a) The existence or otherwise of continuing ties between the departing parent and Australia (such as the ownership of real estate, the existence of business interests, or the residence of close family or friends here);

The court found that the mother was an Australian citizen,  her travel papers did not recognise her as a citizen of China, that she had lived in Australia for the last 7 years,  that there was yet to be a property settlement and the mother had offered to put up her share of a $800,000 and $1 million as a bond to ensure her and the baby’s return. This was the key factor for the child to be returned.

(b) The existence and strength of possible motives not to return (including the level of conflict between the parents, particularly over child related issues);

The father said that the mother’s parents had come to Australia as business migrants, but had sold their home here and moved back to China, that they were very wealthy and intended for the child not to return. There was no evidence that they would try and prevent the child from returning. 

(c) The existence and strength of possible motives to remain in the other nominated country (such as the ownership of real estate, the existence of business interests, or the residence of close family and/or personal friends there);

Justice Cronin found that the risk of non-return was low.

(d) Whether the country of travel is a signatory to the Hague convention.

The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction is the prime means to retrieve children from overseas. It is usually a lot easier to get a child back from a country that has signed up to the Hague convention than one that has not. China has not signed the Hague convention.

Request an Appointment
Fill in the form below to find out if you have a claim.
Request an Appointment - Stephen Page
Things to Read, Watch & Listen

WA surrogacy parents: register now for parentage orders

Western Australians who have had a child through surrogacy, whether in Western Australia, elsewhere in Australia or overseas, may soon have an important opportunity to obtain legal recognition as parents. The Western Australian Government is seeking registrations from past surrogacy parents who do not have a parentage order. This is particularly significant for families who… Read More »WA surrogacy parents: register now for parentage orders

Parenting plans vs consent orders explained

When parents separate, one of the most important questions is how arrangements for children will be recorded. Will the agreement be kept flexible through a parenting plan, or formalised in legally binding consent orders? There is no single answer that suits every family. The right option depends on the level of trust between parents, the… Read More »Parenting plans vs consent orders explained

Sperm donor family limit in Queensland explained

Queensland’s new sperm donor family limit was intended to create clarity, consistency and better access to donor sperm. Instead, guidance issued to IVF clinics has produced a result that appears to halve donor access for many lesbian couples. The legislation provides for a 10-family limit. Yet where two women are in a couple and seek… Read More »Sperm donor family limit in Queensland explained

Family Law Section Law Council of Australia Award
Member of Queensland law society
Family law Practitioners Association
International Academy of Family Lawyers - IAFL
Mediator Standards Board