Application for return of children — grave risk of harm — child objection defence — Australia — Care of Children Act 2004, s 106 — Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction — COL v LAR [2018] NZHC 2902 — A v Central Authority [1996] 2 NZLR 517 (CA) — White v Northumberland [2006] NZFLR (CA). The applicant father sought return of the parties' children to Australia. Under the Care of Children Act (the Act), which codified the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (the Convention), an application for return will be successful if it can be shown that: (a) the child is in New Zealand; (b) the child was removed from another Contracting State in breach of an applicant’s rights of custody; (c) at the time of removal those rights were being exercised (or would have been but for the removal) and; (d) the child was habitually resident in the Contracting State immediately before removal. There was no dispute these grounds were made out, but the mother sought to stay with the children in New Zealand on the grounds of two defences under s 106 of the Act. First, the mother raised the defence of grave risk. This test has a high threshold. She submitted the father was emotionally, physically and sexually abusive to her. The father denied these allegations. As there was no evidence beyond the mother's statements and her reports to counselling and psychological services, the Judge could not determine that she had suffered abuse or was likely to suffer abuse if she returned to Australia. Further, the grave risk must be to the children. There was no evidence the children would be placed at risk if they returned. The mother also raised the child objection defence. Determination of a defence on the ground of a child objection is a four-step process: (a) Does the child object to return? If so; (b) Has the child attained an age and degree of maturity at which it is appropriate to give weight to the child’s views? If so; (c) What weight should be given to the child’s views? And; (d) How should the residual statutory discretion be exercised? The Judge found that only one child objected to returning to Australia. It was also determined that neither child had attained age and maturity to give significant weight to their views. The mother failed to establish either defence. An order was made for the return of the children to Australia. Judgment Date: 24 September 2019. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *