Sukova & Allen

In *Sukova & Allen* [2011] FamCA 340, the Family Court of Australia considered an application by Ms Sukova (the wife) for permission to travel overseas with the child, B, born in November 2006. The wife sought to travel to Country C for a period between June and July 2011, to attend a christening and for the child to visit her extended family. She also sought to discharge existing injunctions preventing international travel and for the husband, Mr Allen, to sign documents related to the child's passport. The husband opposed all orders, seeking the dismissal of the wife's application.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the child, B, should be permitted to travel overseas with the mother, and if so, under what conditions. This involved considering the paramountcy of the child's best interests, the existing parenting orders, the potential risks associated with international travel, and the relationship between the child and both parents. The court also had to determine whether to lift the existing injunctions against international travel and address the wife's request regarding passport documentation.

Justice Cronin applied the principles of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), particularly the requirement to regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration under s 60CA. The court considered factors relevant to international travel cases, including the strength of ties to Australia, potential motives for not returning, motives for remaining in the destination country, and whether the destination country was a signatory to the Hague Convention. While acknowledging the wife's desire for the child to connect with her family in Country C, the court noted the lack of trust between the parties, the wife's limited disclosure of travel plans, and concerns about the child's relationship with the father. The court also considered the husband's concerns about the child's welfare and the potential impact on his relationship with B.

The court ordered that the injunction restraining the wife from removing the child from Australia be suspended to permit travel to Country C between 4 June 2011 and 3 July 2011. This permission was subject to strict conditions, including the provision of travel itineraries, return tickets, and addresses to the husband's lawyers seven days prior to departure. The wife was also required to provide a copy of the orders and confirmation from her solicitors that $15,000 was held in trust as security for the child's return. The Australian Federal Police were to be provided with copies of the orders and the security confirmation, and the child's name was to be retained on the Airport Watch List. The wife was ordered to pay the $15,000 security into the husband's solicitors' trust account seven days before departure. The husband was granted liberty to apply for the release of these funds if the child was not returned within 24 hours of the specified return date. Upon return, the wife was to immediately advise the husband. The wife's application and the husband's response were otherwise dismissed.