Astin and Harlow

In *Astin & Harlow* [2014] FamCA 133, the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the mother, Ms Astin, for interim orders, including an airport watch order, to prevent her 16-year-old child from travelling internationally. The father, Mr Harlow, had sole parental responsibility for the child, following orders made in 2010 which also placed the decision-making power regarding the child's relationship with her mother in the child's hands. The mother's application was precipitated by an incident where the Australian Federal Police reportedly intercepted the child at the airport due to concerns about her travelling alone on a one-way ticket to Malaysia.

The court was required to determine whether to grant the mother's application for an airport watch order and related restrictions on the child's international travel. This involved considering the existing court orders, particularly the 2006 order requiring leave to file further parenting applications, and the 2010 order granting the father sole parental responsibility and giving the child control over her relationship with her mother. The court also had to assess the evidence presented by the mother regarding her concerns about the child's welfare and the potential for the child not to return to Australia, against the father's evidence detailing his international business travel and the child's successful engagement with distance education.

Justice Cronin reasoned that the mother's application for an airport watch order lacked a sufficient evidentiary basis. The court noted that the 2010 orders, which granted the father sole parental responsibility and left the child's relationship with her mother to her own discretion, were paramount. The mother's concerns about the child's welfare and potential non-return were not supported by evidence, particularly given the child's age and the father's established arrangements for her care and education during his international travel. Furthermore, the court found that the father, as the parent with sole responsibility, had the power to make decisions regarding the child's international travel, and that the mother's arguments regarding the father's alleged lack of communication and the child's medical issues were not grounds to impose travel restrictions, especially as no applications had been made to vary the existing orders. The court also dismissed the mother's other applications, including for an Independent Children's Lawyer and for a communications gateway, finding them to be misguided or lacking a proper basis.

The court ordered that the child D has permission to travel internationally and that any restriction imposed as a result of the mother's actions be removed. The mother's application for interim orders was dismissed, and her substantive applications were struck out and dismissed. The court also stayed the respective substantive applications pending further order, having granted the mother leave nunc pro tunc to bring her application, acknowledging the history of litigation and the 2006 order. The father was awarded costs.