MABEL & CONNOR

[2015] FamCA 444

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MABEL & CONNOR [2015] FamCA 444

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Application to discharge an airport watchlist order to permit the child to travel overseas – where the father is deceased – where the mother has provided evidence of the father’s death – where the travel is to facilitate contact with the paternal grandparents – best interests – final orders made discharging the previous order

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Ms Mabel

RESPONDENT: Mr Connor (Deceased)

FILE NUMBER: MLC 4832 of 2015

DATE DELIVERED: 29 May 2015

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Johns J

HEARING DATE: 29 May 2015

REPRESENTATION

THE APPLICANT: In person

THE RESPONDENT: No appearance

Orders

1. That paragraph 7 of the Orders dated 28 August 2003 be discharged.

2. That the application filed this day be otherwise dismissed.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Mabel & Connor has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 4832 of 2015

Ms Mabel

Applicant

And

Mr Connor (Deceased)

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. I have before me today an Initiating Application filed by the applicant mother.  She is Ms Mabel, who is aged 34 years and lives in Suburb A, Victoria.  Her occupation is stated as “home duties”.

2. In her application she seeks an order for the discharge of an airport watchlist order that was made by the Court on 28 August 2003 by Registrar FitzGibbon (as he then was). 

3. The background to the matter is as follows.  The applicant was in a relationship with the respondent Mr Connor.  They were in a relationship between 2001 and 2003.  There is one child of the relationship, B, born in 2002.  She is aged 12 years.

4. Orders were made on an interim basis on 28 August 2003.  Those orders included the making of a restraint upon the parties from removing their daughter B from the Commonwealth of Australia and also an order that she be placed on the airport watchlist.  Subsequent to those orders being made, final orders were made by Guest J on 8 November 2005.  Those orders finalised the parenting arrangements between the parties. 

5. Sadly, on 18 October 2010, the child’s father died as a result of a motorcycle accident. 

6. The order that is now sought is a discharge of the watchlist order.  In support of the application, the applicant has sworn an affidavit on 29 May 2015.  That affidavit annexes the father’s death certificate.  I am satisfied that that evidences the death of the respondent.  That affidavit also details the proposed travel arrangements for the child to spend time in Country C with her paternal grandparents.  It was proposed that the child travel between 28 May 2015 and 1 June 2015. 

7. Unfortunately for the paternal grandparents and the child, it is evident that the existence of the airport watchlist order had been overlooked and as a result they were barred from leaving the country yesterday evening.  Arrangements have been made for the child to travel to Country C with her grandparents this evening at 6 pm.  I have before me a proposed travel itinerary which indicates that it is intended that she will return to Australia, after her short holiday, on 1 June 2015. 

8. Having regard to the history of the matter, I am satisfied that it is appropriate that the airport watch list order be discharged.  That history indicates that events have overtaken the need for that order, particularly in circumstances where the child’s father is deceased.  The consequence of that is that the responsibility for her day-to-day care as well as her long-term care falls to her mother, who is the applicant before me.  I am satisfied that it is in the child’s best interests that the watch list order be discharged.

9. I am heartened to see from the material that notwithstanding the tragic circumstances of the child’s father’s passing, the child still is supported in maintaining her relationship with her paternal grandparents.  That is a credit to both the grandparents as well as to her mother, who has the primary, indeed, the sole responsibility for her care. 

I certify that the preceding nine (9) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Johns delivered on 29 May 2015.

Associate: 

Date:  29 May 2015