Overview

In this episode, I discuss restraints against travelling with children, including whether such restraints can be made in relation to travel within Australia. I also discuss the Australian Federal Police Family Law Watchlist. 

Travel restraints

International travel restrained by default

As I discussed in earlier episodes, once a parenting order is in place in relation to a child, or even an application has been made in relation to a child, the default position is that it’s an offence to remove the child from Australia without a court order or authenticated written consent of the other parties. 

In effect, a restraint is automatically in place as soon as a parenting application is filed.  That means it’s not really strictly necessary to apply for a restraint against another party, or another parent, taking a child outside of Australia.  However, for practical reasons, it’s generally a good idea to seek an express order if a client wants to restrain the other parent/party from travelling, and I address that further below in relation to the AFP’s Family Law Watchlist. 

Injunctions in parenting proceedings

The power to order an injunction in a parenting case is found in Section 68B of the Family Law Act.  When one looks at its subsections, it quickly becomes clear that a travel restraint must be made on the basis of the personal protection of the child. 

The test for a travel restraint is really the other side of the coin of the test for a travel application, which I discussed in the last episode.  The same considerations under Kuebler and Line apply. 

Restraints against travel within Australia?

There is no default restraint against travelling with a child within Australia.  In other words, parents are generally at liberty to travel within Australia without any permission being required from the court or another parent.  That makes sense, because as long as the child remains within Australia’s borders, it’s within the reach of the court.  That means the court can, in appropriate cases, make a recovery order, and the Australian Federal Police can execute a recovery order.

However, as I mentioned earlier, the court has power to make injunctions under Section 68B.  It’s possible to apply for a restraint against travel within Australia, whether it’s restraining a parent from removing a child from a particular geographic area, or restraining a parent from taking a child to a particular geographic area.  But the court would need to be persuaded that that restraint is necessary for the personal protection of the child.

From the cases that I’ve read, that power is usually only exercised in relation to permanent relocations, rather than short-term travel.  In fact, a lot of the authorities about relocation have a carve-out specifically for short-term travel. 

Australian Federal Police Family Law Watchlist

Returning now to international travel, the Australian Federal Police maintains the Family Law Watchlist, which is also sometimes referred to as the Airport Watchlist.  When a child is on the Family Law Watchlist, and the child is about to leave Australia – typically  when the child is taken through passport control at an airport or a seaport – the Watchlist automatically triggers an alert to the AFP, and, generally, that will mean the child cannot travel through passport control, and won’t be allowed to leave the country. 

How to add a child to the Family Law Watchlist

There are generally two ways to request that a child be added to the Family Law Watchlist:

  • When a court makes an order restraining a parent from taking the child overseas, that is usually coupled with a request in the order that the child be added to the Family Law Watchlist.  The registry of the court which has made the order will typically communicate that request to the AFP on the same day, and the AFP will then action it. There’s no need for the party, or their lawyer, to communicate with the AFP. The court manages that process. 
  • The other way is for a party, directly, to request that a child be added to the Watchlist, and the AFP has a form for this on its website.  That form needs to be submitted together with a copy of either the order restraining the travel, or an application for an order restraining the travel.  That’s really quite a powerful thing, because it means that, before the other party has even been served with the application, let alone a court having made any determination, a child can already be added to the Watchlist. 

Technically, in my view, any application for a parenting order ought to be sufficient to add a child to the Watchlist, given the provisions of Section 65Z, but the AFP’s form specifically requires an order, or an application for an order, restraining the removal of the child from Australia.  On a practical level, the AFP’s position makes perfect sense to me.  If one parent is going to place the child on the Airport Watchlist, they really should be squarely putting the other parent on notice of that, and giving them the opportunity to resist that application, and to seek permission to travel overseas with the child.

Abuse of the Watchlist

Unfortunately, the self-help option, where a party can request that the AFP add a child to the Watchlist upon the filing of an application seeking a restraint against international travel, is vulnerable to abuse.  A recent example of this is Brasch J’s decision in Robinson & Heyden [2026] FedCFamC1F 67.  In that case, a Judge in Division 2 had, fairly recently, made final parenting orders, including that:

  • the father have sole decision-making responsibility for the child;
  • the child live with the father; and
  • the child only spend time with the mother in accordance with the child’s wishes.

The father was planning to relocate overseas with the child, back to his home country.  The mother then issued an application seeking a travel restraint, and immediately requested that the child be placed on the Watchlist.

Brasch J found that, given the final orders that had been made, the father was at liberty to relocate internationally without the mother’s consent, and without a further order. Her Honour ultimately found that there was no basis to reopen the case under Section 65DAAA, and, therefore, dismissed the mother’s application, and ordered that the child be removed from the Watchlist.

To protect against further abuses of the Watchlist by the mother, Brasch J also made a specific order giving the father liberty to apply at short notice, including on weekends and after hours, directly to her Honour’s chambers.