O’Connor and Islington

In *O’Connor & Islington* [2011] FamCA 763, the Family Court of Australia considered a discrete question concerning the travel arrangements for the parties' eight-year-old child, B. The applicant father, Mr O’Connor, and the respondent mother, Ms Islington, sought consent orders regarding their children, C and B, but disagreed on whether the father should be required to personally accompany B on flights or ensure another adult did so. The Independent Children’s Lawyer also participated in the proceedings.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether, in the best interests of the child B, the father or another adult should be mandated to accompany her on flights, and if so, who should bear the associated costs. This question arose in the context of the father's existing financial commitments and the mother's concerns about B's comfort and past experiences during unaccompanied travel. The Court was required to weigh the child's expressed wishes, the mother's concerns, the father's evidence regarding airline protocols, and the child's overall best interests.

Justice O’Reilly reasoned that while the child’s physical safety was adequately addressed by the F Airlines unaccompanied child protocol, the child had expressed a wish not to fly alone, which indicated some discomfort. Although the mother’s concerns about a past incident were not recent, the child’s increasing vocalisation of her desire not to travel unaccompanied was significant. The Court considered that while a mandatory order for accompaniment was not strictly required for the child’s best interests, it was desirable. Consequently, the Court made a non-mandatory order by consent, requiring the father, at his cost, to ensure B was accompanied by himself or an adult known to the child whenever possible, and to comply with the F Airlines unaccompanied child protocol when accompaniment was not feasible. The parties were also ordered to facilitate the protocol.

The Court ordered that the father, at his cost, ensure that the child B be accompanied on flights by himself or an adult known to the child whenever possible, and where not possible, ensure her flight arrangements comply with the F Airlines unaccompanied child protocol. Both parties were ordered to do all things necessary to facilitate this protocol. These orders were to remain in effect until B turned nine years old. All other applications concerning the child were dismissed, and the Independent Children’s Lawyer was discharged.