Meredith and Allen

Mr Meredith (the father) applied to the Family Court of Australia for interim orders permitting him to travel with his severely handicapped daughter, [B], to Southeast Asia for a holiday. He sought permission for the travel, for consent for the issue of a passport for [B] to be dispensed with, and for a passport to be issued to her. Ms Allen (the mother) opposed the application, citing significant health and logistical risks to [B] associated with the proposed international travel. An Independent Children's Lawyer was appointed to represent [B]'s interests.

The court was required to determine whether to grant the father's application for international travel for [B], considering the paramountcy of her best interests. This involved assessing whether there was new and additional information not before the Federal Magistrate in a previous, similar application that would justify revisiting the issue. The court also needed to weigh the father's desire for [B] to experience a holiday with her siblings against the mother's detailed concerns regarding the child's medical condition, the practicalities of long-haul travel, and the adequacy of facilities and care in the proposed destination.

The court considered previous findings by a Federal Magistrate who had dismissed a similar application, noting that the mother's concerns were valid and motivated by genuine commitment to the child's welfare. While acknowledging the father's belief that [B] should not miss out due to her disability, the court found that the medical evidence was not sufficiently clear to support the proposed travel. Expert opinions, including that of the child's treating clinical geneticist, were either ambivalent or expressed significant reservations. Specifically, the court noted the lack of explicit medical endorsement for the trip and the grave concerns raised by the child's GP regarding the suitability of aircraft seating, toileting facilities, and the duration of the flight for a child with [B]'s complex needs. The court also found that the father underplayed the difficulties he would face in managing the child's care without respite, particularly given her challenging sleep patterns and the lack of specialised facilities.

Ultimately, the father's applications were dismissed. The court concluded that the mother's concerns were valid and that the available medical evidence did not support the proposed international travel for the severely handicapped child, prioritising her welfare and safety.