Judge was biased in case of Lebanese father

A FATHER who returned to Australia from Lebanon should not have been ­referred to immigration authorities, a court has ruled.

A FATHER of seven who lived in Lebanon and allegedly returned to Australia to claim welfare should not have been ­referred to immigration authorities or Centrelink, the full Family Court has ruled.

The court found Federal Circuit Court judge Joe Harman made legal errors and there was a reasonable apprehension he was biased against the father.

The man and his wife, first cousins in an arranged marriage, spent much of their time in Lebanon but, according to the wife, returned to Australia periodically to claim benefits.

When the couple arrived at Melbourne Airport in March, the wife enlisted the help of the AFP to leave the husband and flew with their four youngest children to Sydney.

Born in Australia, she ­alleged the husband had physically and verbally abused her, prevented her from seeing family and had over the years kept one or more children in Lebanon to ensure she did not leave the marriage.

She filed an application to the Federal Circuit Court seeking sole custody of the seven children, aged two to 12. The husband denied all ­allegations and argued a Lebanese court should determine the custody arrangements.

In July, Justice Harman banned the father from leaving the country until the dispute was finalised and ordered the three eldest children be brought to Australia. He referred the case to welfare and immigration.

The full Family Court last week overturned those orders and sent the matter back to a different Federal Circuit Court judge.

It said the stridency of Judge Harman’s views and his decision to refer the father’s citizenship to authorities was “extraordinary”.

In 2012-13, the family rec­eived $25,000 in tax benefits ­despite three of the children having lived in Lebanon since 2009.