GDPW & IDPW

The parties in this matter were GDPW and IDPW. The dispute concerned an application for passport orders in relation to a child. The application was heard by O’Reilly J in the Family Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether it possessed the jurisdiction to make passport orders in circumstances where the child was not an Australian citizen and had not been habitually resident in Australia. This question engaged the Court's inherent parens patriae jurisdiction and its statutory powers concerning the welfare of children.

O’Reilly J reasoned that the Family Court's jurisdiction to make passport orders is not confined to situations where the child is an Australian citizen or habitually resident in Australia. The Court's parens patriae jurisdiction, which allows it to intervene for the protection of children within its purview, extends to making orders necessary for a child's welfare, even if the child's connection to Australia is otherwise tenuous. The Court considered that the ability to control the issue of a passport was a significant power to protect a child from potential harm or to facilitate their return to Australia if that was in their best interests.

The Court made orders granting the application for passport orders.