Beyond the Watchlist: Child Travel Protections

Let's imagine a scenario: you've separated, and you want to take your child overseas to meet grandparents they've never known. The other parent's answer is a flat no, because what if you don't come back? It's one of the most emotionally charged fights in family law, and it usually starts with a single question: should the child's name come off the Family Law Airport Watchlist? Three recent decisions from the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia show that the answer is rarely a simple yes or no.

Alard & Dinesh [2024] FedCFamC1F 260

In this case, the mother and father had a six-year-old daughter and a long, difficult separation behind them. By early 2024, they had resolved almost everything by consent, with the mother holding sole parental responsibility and the father building up to overnight time with their daughter. The one issue left unresolved was travel.

The child hadn't seen her extended family overseas since she was an infant. The mother wanted her removed from the Watchlist so they could visit. The father wanted the restriction to stay in place until the child turned twelve, worried that once his daughter was out of the country, she might not come back — particularly because their country of heritage isn't a signatory to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, the treaty that gives Australian courts a fast track to recover an abducted child.

Justice Harper had to weigh that fear against the child's right to know her family and culture. On the evidence, the fear didn't stack up. The mother had already travelled overseas with the child twice before, at times when there was no court order stopping her, and she'd returned both times. She was also actively rebuilding a career in Australia that she'd invested years into, with no property or employment ties pulling her toward permanent relocation.

Removing the Watchlist, But Not the Safety Net

The Court agreed to remove the child from the Watchlist — but not unconditionally. Before any trip to a country outside the Hague Convention, the travelling parent now has to pay a $20,000 bond into Court, returned once they can prove with a boarding pass that the child came home, and forfeited to the other parent if she doesn't return within seven days.

That bond requirement disappears entirely if the travelling parent is an Australian citizen who owns property here, on the logic that owning a home is its own kind of insurance policy against never coming back.

On top of the bond, the orders require six weeks' written notice of any trip, the travel tickets handed over two weeks beforehand, weekly video calls with the other parent while overseas, and a shorter six-hour notice window if a genuine emergency comes up. It's a detailed structure, but it let a young girl reconnect with family she'd never really known, while giving her father real, enforceable reassurance.

Alduino & Alduino [2025] FedCFamC1F 303

Not every case is a fight about whether travel should happen at all. In this matter, involving two young boys, the parents actually agreed the children should be able to travel overseas to see their mother's family in the United States. She's a dual Australian-American citizen, and the family hadn't been able to visit in almost a decade. The disagreement was purely about money: how big should the security bond be?

The father, worried the mother might not return, wanted $30,000. The mother, who was unemployed, on government benefits, and saving around $20 a week, proposed $5,000. The children's Independent Children's Lawyer suggested splitting the difference at $10,000.

Justice Curran sided with the mother's figure of $5,000, and the reasoning is worth understanding if you're ever in this position yourself. A bond only works as a deterrent if the person paying it can actually afford to lose it. Set the number too high, and you don't reduce risk at all — you simply guarantee that a parent with limited means can never afford to take the children travelling, no matter how legitimate the trip.

The Court also pointed out that the United States is a signatory to the Hague Convention, meaning there'd be a genuine legal pathway to recover the children if the mother didn't return — unlike in cases where the destination country offers no such protection. Add to that the mother's clear ties to Australia, having already abandoned an earlier bid to relocate the children permanently and agreed to final orders keeping them here, and the risk profile simply didn't justify a punishing bond. The children's passports were also ordered to be held by the mother's solicitor between trips, and she must give 42 days' written notice before any overseas travel.

Feeney & Feeney [2022] FedCFamC1F 420

Not every case ends with travel being allowed, and this one shows why. The mother had been born overseas and had lived in Australia since she was a teenager. She wanted her five-year-old daughter removed from the Watchlist so she could take her to visit family in her country of birth.

But there was history here. Back in 2019, mid-separation, the mother had taken the child overseas without the father's clear consent and left her — then just two and a half years old — in the care of her own parents for over nine weeks while she flew home alone. She eventually returned for the child, but the episode understandably shaped the father's fears going forward.

By the time the matter reached Court, two more factors had sharpened the risk. First, the mother's country of birth was not a Hague Convention country, and it was, at that moment, in active armed conflict with a neighbouring country, prompting a formal Australian government travel warning. Second, the mother was in the process of selling her only Australian property, meaning that for a period of time she'd own no real estate here at all.

The mother proposed a $10,000 bond as security. Justice McClelland found it wasn't nearly enough. Her cash reserves from a recent property settlement comfortably exceeded that figure, so losing it wouldn't meaningfully deter her from staying overseas if she chose to. And because her country of birth was not part of the Hague Convention, there'd be no efficient legal mechanism to bring the child home even if the father tried.

Importantly, the Court did not find that the mother was likely to abduct the child, and only found that there was an unacceptable risk relating to travel, weighed against how serious the consequences would be if that risk eventuated. Here, the combination of past conduct, a temporary lack of Australian property, an active conflict zone, and no Hague Convention safety net tipped the balance. The Watchlist order stayed in place, though the Court noted it could revisit the decision once the mother had bought a new home in Australia, removing one of the key risk factors.

Other Means to Mitigate Risk

Other recent decisions have gone further still — ordering a child's passport to be held by the Court Registrar rather than either parent, restricting travel to Hague Convention countries only, or requiring a fresh application before every single trip rather than blanket permission to travel at all. Where a parent has simply refused to sign a passport application, courts have stepped in and authorised the Registrar to sign in their place. The common thread is the same: courts are far more comfortable landing on a tailored set of conditions than an all-or-nothing answer.

Summary

If you're the parent worried about the other parent taking your child overseas, know that an outright, indefinite Watchlist order isn't your only option, and it isn't guaranteed either. Courts are willing to engineer detailed, practical safeguards — bonds, passport arrangements, notice periods, video calls — that can address genuine risk without cutting your child off from family and culture overseas.

At Surge Legal, we regularly act for parents on both sides of these disputes — whether you're seeking to have a child removed from the Airport Watchlist, or you need robust conditions in place before you'll agree to overseas travel. If international travel is part of your parenting matter, we encourage you to get in touch with our team.

📞 (02) 8551 7851 📩 Contact us online | Book a consultation

For more information about parenting arrangements, visit our Parenting Matters page.

This article is a general summary of Alard & Dinesh [2024] FedCFamC1F 260, Alduino & Alduino [2025] FedCFamC1F 303, and Feeney & Feeney [2022] FedCFamC1F 420 for information purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. Please contact Surge Legal to discuss your individual circumstances.