An Aboriginal child who was moved 1,700km from his remote Northern Territory community should be returned to ensure he can experience his culture, the family court has found.

The boy, known as X in the court proceedings, was born in 2016, when his mother was in prison. She did not take part in the court proceedings, and the man believed to be the boy’s father only took a limited part in the case.

X lives in Western Australia with a woman known as Ms Hronn, who has cared for him for several years. The child’s grandfather claimed X was stolen by “a white government worker”.

The name of the town where he lives and the remote community where he used to live were redacted from court documents.

On Thursday, the appeal division of the federal circuit and family court ruled that Hronn had failed to overturn parenting orders handed down last November.

She sought to have sole responsibility for the boy, and for him to live with her, as well as injunctions including that other people including his father were prevented from removing him from his school or her care.

But parenting orders instead required that the boy be returned to his community, known as Town N in the court documents.

In April 2018, the NT department of children and families placed X in the care of his grandmother, Ms V in Town N.

Hronn had lived in Town N since November 2015, and told the court the grandmother asked her to look after X.

Under local cultural law, the court heard X was considered to be Hronn’s son and she had a cultural obligation to care for him, provided she continued to live in the town.

By 2022, he was living with her permanently, Hronn told the court. She took X to live with her in WA, in a place known as Town C. He was enrolled in school there.

Subsequently, she returned to Town N with X for a funeral. His grandmother and grandfather would not let X leave with Hronn.

Ms Tracey, who also sought parenting orders, was also considered to be X’s mother under their people’s kinship system.

Hronn returned home without X late in 2022. But after discussions with his grandmother and her husband, he eventually returned to live with her, although there was a dispute as to whether this was against their wishes.

When his grandmother died in August 2023, her husband asked Hronn to return with X for the funeral. She refused, saying he did not want to go.

His grandfather, an elder, started court proceedings seeking parenting orders in May 2024. He later discontinued his involvement in seeking orders in the case, but gave evidence supporting the orders sought by Tracey.

Justice Richard Schonell, of the federal circuit and family court of Australia, ruled in November last year that X should be returned to his country.

Hronn had argued that “it was utterly unsafe for [X] to return to [Town D] where it is alleged that he was sexually and physically abused, and subject to neglect and family violence”.

“[X] fully understands that when he is ready to return to [Town D] that I will fully support his return,” she told the court.

“The decision for [X] to not return to [Town D] is his own and not mine. [X] still enjoys his own culture and language.

“[X] does not have a connection with some members of the [Town D] community because he chooses not to due to past events and due to threats have been made towards him. I will always support [X’s] decisions.”

Schonell said the comments reflected “poorly on her parenting capacity and understanding of his culture that she leaves these important decisions to X.

“It is also disingenuous as she says she is not financially able to return him.”

Opportunity to learn about culture

He said that while he had no doubt that Hronn “deeply loves and cares for X and wants the best for him”, he was not satisfied she had the cultural competence she claimed.

“A return to [Town N] for [X] is not a return to some alien location … he is returning to a place where he has lived most of his life,” Schonell found.

“Through being on country, [X] can learn about his culture through the stories and [rituals] that can only be taught on country. He will be able to take part in men’s business which the elders … can teach him.

“He will be able to assume the cultural responsibilities of his community.”

Hronn appealed on two grounds.

She argued that Schonell had not given adequate reasons for a finding that there was only a low risk of X being sexually abused if he was returned to his community, and that he had erred in his assessment of unacceptable risk.

But three judges of the appellate division disagreed, saying Schonell’s reasons were “detailed and nuanced”.

“They contain a valuable discussion on the approach to Aboriginal witnesses, cultural considerations and a cogent summary of the evidence as to the local customary law,” justices Murray Aldridge, Tom Altobelli and Penelope Kari found.