THE PRESS THURSDAY, MAY 16, 1985. Enforcing custody orders

Press, 16 May 1985, Page 12

THE PRESS THURSDAY, MAY 16, 1985. Enforcing custody orders

The application of the law to domestic conflicts is always difficult and often messy. This is doubly so when two separate jurisdictions apply. Such an example, highlighted by recent events, is when an estranged parent abducts a child who has been given into the custody of a former partner by a court order and then removes the child to Australia. As a result of recent cases, the Minister of Justice, Mr Palmer, has agreed that the Government should discuss with the Australian authorities the problems faced by parents trying to recover abducted children from Australia. A formal procedure exists by which a custody order made by a New Zealand court can be sent to Australia for registration, after which it has the same effect as if it were an order of an Australian court. The same procedures for enforcing the custody order then apply. On paper, and when it works as it is intended to, this system is quite adequate. The procedure is not as simple — and by no means as effective — when the children are born outside marriage. Registration of a New Zealand order in Australia is not automatic if a child has been born outside a marriage. The law in Australia demands further proceedings before a registration of custody is entered there. This obviously complicates attempts to retrieve children. Both civil and criminal remedies are available when children are abducted by a parent. The special relationship between the

child and the adult is what distinguishes the offence from the serious crime of kidnapping; nevertheless, when a custody order is in force, a court has placed limitations on this special relationship. As the recent cases have shown, the speed with which matters are sorted out after a child has been abducted falls far short of what would be expected in, say, a case of kidnapping. It seems that a more rapid resolution of the matter could be achieved in some instances by introducing serious charges that could be the subject of an extradition order. Taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut is, in some cases undesirable and counterproductive. The Crimes Act and the Guardianship Act appear to provide adequate legal machinery to deal with the issue. Better liaison between the authorities in New Zealand and Australia would seem to be the best way to prevent a recurrence of the problems that have arisen. The abduction of children to places overseas is not a frequent occurrence; New Zealand’s relative isolation is partly responsible for that. Nevertheless, the offence occurs frequently enough, and the effects are sufficiently distressing to warrant a set of procedures that can be applied uniformly and swiftly on both sides of the Tasman. The purpose is not only to ensure the integrity of orders made by the courts, but also to reduce the frustrations and impediments confronting parents and guardians in an already trying set of circumstances.