Fowles and Fowles (No 2)

In *Fowles and Fowles (No 2)*, Bennett J of the Family Court of Australia considered two distinct applications by the husband. The first concerned the husband's request to dissolve a restraint preventing him from leaving Australia prior to the completion of his cross-examination in final property proceedings. The second application related to the husband's desire to take the parties' 16-year-old child, D, out of Australia to attend his father's funeral in the United States and Country U, and a commemorative service in the United States.

The court was required to determine whether to lift the travel restriction on the husband, balancing the need to uphold the integrity of the court's hearing process against the husband's stated reasons for travel. In relation to the child D, the court had to consider the child's best interests, applying the factors outlined in section 60CC of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), including additional considerations. This involved assessing the appropriateness of allowing D to travel given the husband's behaviour and the child's own expressed wishes.

Bennett J reasoned that while the integrity of the court process was paramount, a temporary suspension of the travel restraint was warranted to permit the husband to attend his father's funeral, visit his ailing mother, and spend time with his family. This suspension was made subject to significant security measures, including the execution of a client authorisation for the transfer of the husband's interest in a property and his resignation as a director of a company, with these documents to be held in escrow by his solicitors. The court also ordered a substantial payment on account of the wife's entitlements. Regarding the child D, the court dismissed the husband's application for D to travel with him, finding that such travel was not in D's best interests due to the father's unpredictable behaviour and failure to grant the child financial autonomy during any absence. The court directed the independent children's lawyer to explain this outcome to D.