Order for return of child — acquiescence — consent to removal — grave risk to child — intolerable situation — Care of Children Act 2004, ss 105 & 106 — Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction — KS v LS [2003] 3 NZLR 837 (HC) — Secretary for Justice v HJ [2006] NZSC 97, [2007] 2 NZLR 289 — Olliver v Richardson [2018] NZHC 2696 — Re K (Abduction: Consent) [1997] 2 FLR 212 (FC) — Chief Executive of the Department for Courts v Phelps [2000] 1 NZLR 168 (CA) — DGH v MJT (Abduction) [2009] NZFLR 49 (FC) — KMA v Secretary for Justice [2007] NZCA 223, [2007] NZFLR 891 — LRR v COL [2020] NZCA 209, [2020] NZFLR 98. The applicant father sought an order from the Court for the return of the parties' two children from New Zealand to Australia. The respondent mother had traveled with the children from Australia to New Zealand and informed the applicant she intended to retain them there. The jurisdiction to order the return of the children had been established pursuant to s 105 of the Care of Children Act ("the Act"). If this is made out a court must order the prompt return of the children unless one of the defence grounds in s 106 of the Act is made out. The onus is on the party seeking to retain the children, where they are to establish on the balance of probabilities that one of these defences is made out. The respondent submitted that the children would suffer an intolerable situation if returned to Australia, due to financial hardship she claimed would occur. She submitted that the Australian government subsidy she had been receiving was inadequate to cover her expenses. The Judge considered the evidence and found that the respondent would likely be eligible for other financial assistance in addition to the subsidy she had been receiving. The ground of intolerable situation had therefore not been made out. The Judge concluded there was no further discretion and an order must be made for the children's return to Australia. Judgment Date: 15 April 2021. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *