Application for return of child — habitual residence — acquiescence — grave risk of harm — intolerable situation — COVID-19 border closures — MIQ — Care of Children Act 2004, ss 105 & 106 — Hague Convention — LRR v COL [2020] NZCA 209 — Cresswell v Roberts [2022] NZHC 1265 — Basingstoke v Groot [2007] NZFLR 363 — P v Secretary for Justice CA111/03, 19 December 2003 — SK v KP CA64/04, 24 February 2005 — P v Secretary for Justice CA221/05, 29 June 2006, [2007] 1 NZLR 40 — SK v KP CA64/04, 24 February 2005 — Langdon v Wyler [2017] NZHC 2535. The parties had been in a relationship and had one child together. The parties moved to Australia during their relationship, when their child was around 10 months old. The respondent mother became unhappy and, eight months after arriving in Australia, moved back to New Zealand with the parties' child. The applicant father commenced proceedings in the New Zealand Family Court to have the child returned to Australia. The first step in assessing an application for return of a child is to determine where the child is habitually resident. Given how young the child was and that he had lived in Australia almost half of his life, coupled with the parties' intention to move there, the Court determined that the child was habitually resident in Australia. The Court then considered the respondent's defences: that the applicant acquiesced to the child's return to New Zealand, and/or that ordering return of the child to Australia would present a grave risk of psychological harm to the child. The Court found on the evidence that the applicant had not acquiesced to the child returning to New Zealand, and that there was no risk of psychological harm were the child to be returned to Australia. The Court ordered that the child be returned to Australia. Judgment Date: 6 September 2022. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *