Loading
Family LawAustralia2022International Divorce: Australian National and Vietnamese Spouse
Client Context
An Australian national who had relocated to Ho Chi Minh City five years earlier for work, married a Vietnamese citizen in 2017, and had one child (then aged three) together. The couple owned a residential apartment in District 2 worth approximately VND 12B (around USD 480K) jointly, plus separate assets in Australia (the Australian spouse) and Vietnam (the Vietnamese spouse). The Australian client had received a job offer in Singapore and wished to relocate, but the marriage had irretrievably broken down independently.
01
The Challenge
The matter combined three distinct difficulties. First, jurisdictional complexity: both Vietnam (habitual residence of both parents and child) and Australia (citizenship of one parent) had potential jurisdiction over the divorce, custody, and property questions. Filing in the wrong jurisdiction could prejudice key issues. Second, the welfare of a young child whose father wished to relocate to Singapore while the mother and her family network were rooted in Vietnam — and the very real risk that one parent might attempt to remove the child from the country during proceedings. Third, asset division across three countries with very different property-law regimes, including a Vietnamese apartment (registered in joint LURC), a Sydney investment property in the husband's sole name, and family assets on the wife's side of unclear provenance.
The Australian client's primary concern was preserving meaningful relationship and contact with the child despite the relocation, not maximising property recovery. The Vietnamese spouse's concern was preserving primary custody and the child's continuity in Vietnam. There was no fundamental conflict on either point — but the legal mechanism that would deliver both required careful drafting.
02
Our Approach
We elected to file in Vietnam as the child's country of habitual residence and the location of the principal joint asset. As a first protective step, we filed a request under Article 131 of the Civil Procedure Code for the child to be prevented from leaving Vietnam during proceedings, granted within five days. This protected both parents' interests by ensuring that any custody outcome would be respected pending judgment.
With the protective order in place, we focused on negotiated outcome. We coordinated with Australian family-law counsel on the cross-border aspects: how Australian courts would treat a Vietnamese consent order, what visa and immigration consequences arose for the child's travel to Australia, and how the Sydney property would be addressed (separately under Australian law, by mutual agreement). We worked with the Vietnamese spouse's counsel to develop a parenting plan and property-division proposal that gave the child stability in Vietnam, gave the Australian parent generous visitation including holiday travel, and divided Vietnamese assets equitably.
The parenting plan included: child to reside primarily with the Vietnamese mother in HCMC during the school year; six weeks per year with the father (any combination of Vietnam and Singapore); video contact at least twice weekly; first-refusal rights on holiday and school break decisions; and a clear protocol for travel outside Vietnam requiring both parents' consent. The property settlement: the Vietnamese apartment to the Vietnamese spouse with offsetting payment; Australian assets remained with the Australian husband; child support based on Australian income tier with cost-of-living adjustment.
03
The Outcome
The court approved the consent arrangement at the first hearing, six months after filing. The protective order was discharged on judgment. Both parents adapted well: the Australian father took up his Singapore role and has visited Vietnam every six weeks plus longer school-break stays. The child has visited Singapore twice. The arrangement has now operated for nearly four years without modification or dispute. The Sydney property was sold in 2024 with proceeds split per the side agreement. Neither parent has sought any modification or returned to court.
Lessons & Generalisable Insight
The protective travel order in family cases is widely under-used and often the single most de-escalating step in international family proceedings. Once both parents knew the child could not be unilaterally removed, productive negotiation became possible within weeks. Coordinated cross-border planning with Australian family counsel meant the Vietnamese order was structured to be recognised abroad — saving years of potential parallel proceedings. The simple discipline of asking each parent what they actually need (relationship, not property) before negotiating positions made the difference between settlement and trial.
Get in Touch
Ready to Discuss Your Matter?
Get in touch for a confidential consultation. We respond within 24 hours.
Office Hours: Mon-Fri, 8:30 AM - 6:00 PM (GMT+7, Indochina Time)