FLAST NEWS
 ·   ·  829 posts
  •  ·  4838 friends

Grave Risk and Broken Trust: Family Violence Stops Hague Return

In Halmi & Halmi [2025] FedCFamC1F 551, Justice Christie of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) dismissed a father’s application under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (1980), refusing to return two young children to Singapore. Although the mother wrongfully retained the children in Australia, the Court found that her return—and consequently the children’s—would expose them to an intolerable situation and grave risk of psychological harm due to the father’s long history of violence, coercive control, and alcohol abuse. The case highlights how, even in international abduction matters where return is the default, Australian courts may deny it when the safety and wellbeing of children are seriously endangered.

Facts and Issues

  • Parties: Mr Halmi (Father, Applicant) and Ms Halmi (Mother, Respondent).
  • Children: X (aged 4) and Y (aged 2).
  • Background: The family lived in Singapore, where the children were habitually resident. In May 2025, the mother travelled to Australia with the children and failed to return. The father applied under the Hague Convention for their return.
  • Mother’s Defence: She conceded the retention was wrongful but invoked Regulation 16(3)(b) of the Family Law (Child Abduction Convention) Regulations 1986 (Cth), arguing that returning the children would expose them to grave risk of harm and an intolerable situation.
  • Allegations:
  • The father committed persistent and severe family violence from 2010 to 2025 (¶¶ 14–64).
  • He abused alcohol and steroids (¶¶ 19–41, 81).
  • The children had witnessed repeated acts of violence, which traumatised them (¶¶ 66–70).
  • The mother suffered from PTSD as diagnosed by Dr D, a forensic psychiatrist (¶¶ 84–85).
  • Key Issue: Whether the mother proved that returning the children to Singapore would expose them to a grave risk of harm or an intolerable situation under Reg 16(3)(b).

Law

Relevant legal framework:

  • Family Law (Child Abduction Convention) Regulations 1986 (Cth), particularly:
  • Reg 15(1) – allows the Court to impose conditions on a return order.
  • Reg 16(3)(b) – defence of grave risk or intolerable situation.
  • Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 111B – implements the Hague Convention in Australia.
  • The Hague Convention (1980) – seeks prompt return of children wrongfully removed or retained across international borders.

Key Precedents:

  • DP v Commonwealth Central Authority; JLM v Director-General, NSW Department of Community Services (2001) 206 CLR 401 – defines “grave risk” as a qualitative term and outlines the assessment of future risk (¶¶ 10, 108).
  • McDonald & Director-General, Department of Community Services NSW (2006) FLC 93-297 – requires that protective conditions must be enforceable and objectively measurable (¶¶ 110–111).

Application of Law to Facts

  1. Family Violence as Grave Risk
  2. Justice Christie accepted overwhelming evidence of chronic physical violence and coercive control by the father (¶¶ 14–64). This included choking, kicking, and repeated assaults witnessed by the children. Text messages and photos corroborated the mother’s account. The Court held that this long history established a grave risk of psychological harm to the children and an intolerable situation if returned (¶¶ 78–83).
  3. Impact on Mother’s Mental Health and Parenting
  4. Expert psychiatric evidence confirmed that returning to Singapore would trigger severe PTSD symptoms in the mother, undermining her parenting capacity and stability (¶¶ 84–86, 98–101). The Court accepted that this deterioration would indirectly harm the children’s wellbeing.
  5. Inadequacy of Protective Conditions
  6. Although the father offered undertakings—such as abstaining from alcohol and avoiding contact—the Court found these insufficient and unenforceable in Singapore (¶¶ 104–113). Following DP and McDonald, Justice Christie held that conditional orders must be realistically enforceable in the country of return. The father’s history of uncontrolled violence and denial rendered such assurances hollow.
  7. Exercise of Discretion
  8. Even though the mother satisfied the grave risk defence, the Court still considered whether to order return under its discretion (¶¶ 114–115). However, the evidence of sustained violence, coupled with the mother’s fragile mental health, compelled Justice Christie to dismiss the father’s application entirely.

Judgment and Reasoning

  • The Court dismissed the father’s Hague return application.
  • Justice Christie reasoned that returning the children to Singapore would subject them to an intolerable situation—their mother’s psychological collapse, continued exposure to their violent father, and absence of meaningful support systems (¶¶ 83, 102–113).
  • The Court rejected reliance on conditional undertakings because:
  • There was no mechanism to enforce them overseas (¶ 109).
  • The father’s lack of insight and control made compliance unlikely (¶¶ 80–82).
  • The decision reaffirmed that the Convention’s objectives do not override child safety or parental mental health.

Cited Paragraphs and Authorities

  • Family violence findings: ¶¶ 14–64
  • Psychological evidence: ¶¶ 84–86
  • Legal test for “grave risk”: ¶¶ 8–10
  • Inadequacy of undertakings: ¶¶ 108–113
  • Application of precedents: DP (¶ 108), McDonald (¶ 110)
  • Final decision: ¶ 115

Take-Home Lesson

Halmi & Halmi confirms that while the Hague Convention strongly presumes return, safety and psychological wellbeing of the children remain paramount. When credible evidence of family violence and trauma is substantiated, the Australian courts will not send children back into environments that expose them—or their protective parent—to serious risk. The case illustrates that the Convention’s “grave risk” defence is not a loophole—it is a safeguard against perpetuating harm under the guise of international comity.

FLAST

Close