Application for orders — return of child — child abduction — Hague Convention — “removal” — "wrongful removal" — alienation — habitually resident — Care of Children Act 2004, ss 4, 95, 105(2) & 106(1) — Basingstoke v Groot [2007] NZFLR 363 — H v H (1995) 13 FRNZ 498 — Punter v Secretary for Justice (No 2) [2007] 1 NZLR 40 — Punter v Secretary for Justice (No 1) [2004] 2 NZLR 28 — Langdon v Wyler [2017] NZHC 2535 — SK v KP [2005] 3 NZLR 590 — HJG v SRG FC Wellington FAM-2011-085-000569, 2 September 2011 — HJ v Secretary for Justice CA140/04, 11 April 2006, [2006] NZFLR 1005 — Simpson v Hamilton [2019] NZCA 579 — Tonlioli v Pata [2015] NZFC 5151 — Degarmo v Nathaniel [2016] NZFC 3974 — U v R [1998] NZFLR 385 — White v Northumberland [2006] NZFLR 1105 — Bayer v Bayer [2012] NZFC 2878 — Karly v Karly [2017] NZFC 10030 — W v N [2006] NZFLR 793 — JRW v EW HC Dunedin CIV-2006-412-720, 16 October 2006 — M-SCN v JAW FC Rotorua FAM-2010-063-851, 28 February 2011 — Clarke v Carson [1996] 1 NZLR 349 — PIC v GCK [2008] NZFLR 391 (FC) — Coates v Bowden (2007) 26 FRNZ 210 — Qamus v Rowley [2017] NZHC 2260 — M v M [2012] NZHC 874 — PLG v PNG [2010] NZFLR 437 — Secretary for Justice v HJ [2007] 2 NZLR 289. The parties had previously been in a relationship and had a 12-year old son (the child). The respondent father had had care of the child since 2020, and lived with him in New Zealand. In these proceedings, the applicant mother sought the return of the child to live with her in Australia. The parties and the child had lived variously in New Zealand, Australia and China and the respondent had several times removed the child from one country to another without the consent of the applicant. The first issue for the Court was whether the child had been removed from a contracting state per the Hague Convention against child abduction. The respondent submitted that he had not been, because he had been resident in China before being brought to New Zealand. The Court rejected this argument, finding that the child was wrongfully removed from Australia to China, and that the move to China was probably always intended to be temporary. This finding meant that the Court had jurisdiction to hear the matter. The respondent said that he opposed the child's return to Australia because the child was settled in New Zealand and did not want to move to Australia. The Court agreed with these submissions. The child was of sufficient age and maturity for weight to be given to his views, but the Court also found that he was influenced by the respondent. The respondent had deceived the applicant and defied court orders in removing the child from Australia and bringing him to New Zealand; the Court found his behaviour "abhorrent". However the Court found that it would be in the child's best interests to stay in New Zealand, and that this factor narrowly outweighed the need for the Court to maintain the integrity of the Hague Convention. The Court exercised its discretion under s 106 of the Care of Children Act to refuse the return of the child. The application was declined. Judgment Date: 5 April 2023 * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *