Thanks Rod. Since our orders my ex has permanently moved to a non-Hague convention country. I was given sufficient notice of travel but only one week's notice that he would not be accompanying her so I think I am covered for refusing travel on this trip. Still have concerns about future travel with strangers. I also have sole parental responsibility but not sure if this means much in this instance.
Thanks AllForHer. I know it is a grey area. I was not given sufficient notice that our daughter would not be accompanied by her Dad on this trip and he had told me that he was accompanying her until a week out so I think I am within my rights for this trip.
There has been a messy history of very poor parenting decisions on behalf of her Dad (including leaving our daughter home alone for extended periods and failing to maintain appropriate accommodation for her) that has resulted in me being awarded sole parental responsibility. I won't go into it too much but it has led to me being very concerned about the huge difference between our opinions of what is appropriate.
So my instinct was to say that you're being difficult and shared parental responsibility means what dad does with the kid is in his care is dad's issue. BUT you have sole parental responsibility... Legally I don't think dad will have much chance in court if he pursues this...
Dad certainly could have gone about this better - he could have notified you prior to booking the tickets and provided you with a JP signed copy of the 3rd parties passport... Then the courts would have possibly had grounds to be satisfied that you're being difficult and not him...
Just outa interest - and i doubt you'll write your answer... Is your decision to refuse travel based on genuine fear for the child? Do you actually fear that this 3rd party is gonna sell your kid into slavery of something? See my thinking is it is best to do everything possible to make things work. At least that way if this goes to court you seem reasonable.
If you fear that this person is gonna harm the child while on a flight. Let's think this through, you drop kid off at airport, kid is in a very safe environment from then on.... Lots of security, etc, etc at airports... So really you have nothing to fear...
Next - what have you done? Have you asked dad for a photocopy of person's passport? Is the same person flying back with the child? If you were provided with the relevant details of 3rd person would that appease you? It would at least make you look better in court...
So if this goes to court you want to prove that you did all you could to get dad to appease your concerns. It is his choice if he plays along...
On a strict reading of the orders, I'm assuming it doesn't say that the dad must be present during travel? So on a strict reading of the orders I think you're in the wrong.... And in your last post you say you were not given sufficient notice. So if dad told you 3 months ago that would make a difference? I fail to see how.
It would be the same person on the same flight, the only difference? You're given more notice... what does that matter?
My opinion, do all you can to get suitable documentation from dad... Realise, no court will punish you (IMO) if you don't send the child - why? Well clearly there is some history here that I don't know about, sole parental responsibility hints at something...
Look, we all worry about our kids, my kids are currently with their mum and frankly that scares the **** outta me because mum has some bad history... But the courts ordered time with mum, so the kids have time with mum. Like I said, this one is entirely your choice...
So all things being equal - I would send the kid. The kid isn't gonna get damaged by sitting on a plane with someone they don't know. And you're stopping dad seeing the kid because of a choice to interpret the orders a particular way and because the orders do not specifically say dad must attend flights, I think you're in the wrong. However, I understand there would be a few other practical considerations...
Does this person speak English? Does your child speak a common language ?
So to summarize...Can you stop the kid going? Yep. Should you? I don't think so... Not if your only fear is that you don't know the person the kid is sitting beside on a plane... Try and resolve it by asking dad for specific info about the third party... That way at least if it does wind up in court, you can show that you had some concerns, tried to work with dad to sort them and he refused, hence he is the problem, not you.
Dad certainly could have gone about this better - he could have notified you prior to booking the tickets and provided you with a JP signed copy of the 3rd parties passport... Then the courts would have possibly had grounds to be satisfied that you're being difficult and not him...
Just outa interest - and i doubt you'll write your answer... Is your decision to refuse travel based on genuine fear for the child? Do you actually fear that this 3rd party is gonna sell your kid into slavery of something? See my thinking is it is best to do everything possible to make things work. At least that way if this goes to court you seem reasonable.
If you fear that this person is gonna harm the child while on a flight. Let's think this through, you drop kid off at airport, kid is in a very safe environment from then on.... Lots of security, etc, etc at airports... So really you have nothing to fear...
Next - what have you done? Have you asked dad for a photocopy of person's passport? Is the same person flying back with the child? If you were provided with the relevant details of 3rd person would that appease you? It would at least make you look better in court...
So if this goes to court you want to prove that you did all you could to get dad to appease your concerns. It is his choice if he plays along...
On a strict reading of the orders, I'm assuming it doesn't say that the dad must be present during travel? So on a strict reading of the orders I think you're in the wrong.... And in your last post you say you were not given sufficient notice. So if dad told you 3 months ago that would make a difference? I fail to see how.
It would be the same person on the same flight, the only difference? You're given more notice... what does that matter?
My opinion, do all you can to get suitable documentation from dad... Realise, no court will punish you (IMO) if you don't send the child - why? Well clearly there is some history here that I don't know about, sole parental responsibility hints at something...
Look, we all worry about our kids, my kids are currently with their mum and frankly that scares the **** outta me because mum has some bad history... But the courts ordered time with mum, so the kids have time with mum. Like I said, this one is entirely your choice...
So all things being equal - I would send the kid. The kid isn't gonna get damaged by sitting on a plane with someone they don't know. And you're stopping dad seeing the kid because of a choice to interpret the orders a particular way and because the orders do not specifically say dad must attend flights, I think you're in the wrong. However, I understand there would be a few other practical considerations...
Does this person speak English? Does your child speak a common language ?
So to summarize...Can you stop the kid going? Yep. Should you? I don't think so... Not if your only fear is that you don't know the person the kid is sitting beside on a plane... Try and resolve it by asking dad for specific info about the third party... That way at least if it does wind up in court, you can show that you had some concerns, tried to work with dad to sort them and he refused, hence he is the problem, not you.
My concern is that my ex has a history of affiliating with very shady people, many of whom have criminal records and I don't want my daughter to be in the sole care of one of these people. Also, he lied about this in all of our discussions up to this point (a few days before the flight) and has a history of lying about his residential address, etc.
I'm beginning to think that many details of this trip are incorrect as provided to me and he only told me about this detail as it was unavoidable that I found out about it. I certainly have concerns about him failing to return our daughter as he has specifically threatened this before. I have requested details of the travel companion but have only been sent a first name and photo. He has also recently changed his name and I am unsure as to what name he is legally under on his passport etc. So many concerns!
If this was threatened after the court orders, and you have evidence, then if it was me I'd withhold my approval.
Playing devils advocate...
He associates with shady people - opinion...
Yup he lied. The orders don't say you can withhold the child because you caught him out in a lie. Concerns about him not returning the child... Yep, me too, every time they go see their mum I worry about that one. But given my ex has never actually gone through with the threats they mean nothing, same here...
So when is the flight?
My thoughts - you want specific details about the 3rd party...
You want a photocopy of passport and driver licence scanned and emailed... you want a phone number for this person. Confirmation that he will meet child at the airport....Add whatever you want to the list as long as it is reasonable and if dad doesn't comply - his problem...
He has obviously spent money on airfares - The reality is given he is overseas it would be hard for him to take you to court over this stuff but if it did go to court I'm not confident that your strict interpretation of the orders would help...
So some questions - is this the first trip? Are there court orders or consent orders?
One last thing. I read a case years back... Dad sent a third party to do the routine pick up... Mum refused to let the kid go... Now in this case the third party was a close relative and known to the mum. Kid's aunt or something. Mum lost the contravention application.
Now, I understand there are some clear differences here. But in that case it was the mum's assertion that dad had to be at drop off. Hence, my assertion that your strict interpretation of the orders could be problematic...
So have you told dad that you wont agree to hand the kid over? Have you given him a chance to reschedule flights so he can be there?
He associates with shady people - opinion...
Yup he lied. The orders don't say you can withhold the child because you caught him out in a lie. Concerns about him not returning the child... Yep, me too, every time they go see their mum I worry about that one. But given my ex has never actually gone through with the threats they mean nothing, same here...
So when is the flight?
My thoughts - you want specific details about the 3rd party...
You want a photocopy of passport and driver licence scanned and emailed... you want a phone number for this person. Confirmation that he will meet child at the airport....Add whatever you want to the list as long as it is reasonable and if dad doesn't comply - his problem...
He has obviously spent money on airfares - The reality is given he is overseas it would be hard for him to take you to court over this stuff but if it did go to court I'm not confident that your strict interpretation of the orders would help...
So some questions - is this the first trip? Are there court orders or consent orders?
One last thing. I read a case years back... Dad sent a third party to do the routine pick up... Mum refused to let the kid go... Now in this case the third party was a close relative and known to the mum. Kid's aunt or something. Mum lost the contravention application.
Now, I understand there are some clear differences here. But in that case it was the mum's assertion that dad had to be at drop off. Hence, my assertion that your strict interpretation of the orders could be problematic...
So have you told dad that you wont agree to hand the kid over? Have you given him a chance to reschedule flights so he can be there?
Arguably the father has not given sufficient notice. He is the one that made last minute changes without warning.
And threats about not returning a child become far more serious when the child is going to a non-Hague convention country.
There are 170 countries BUT only 70 are signatories to the Hague Convention... So you can't really complain that he is in non-hague countries... Do the orders say he is only allowed to go to Hague convention countries? nope
How is this for a compromise.... You don't send the kid... But you refund him for at least some of the airfare.... Seems fair to me... Go on dare ya.
I still think the mother is breaching the orders... Granted dad could have been more honest.... And Frankly smarter... What he didn't think mum would notice that it wasn't him at the airport to pick up the kid?
How is this for a compromise.... You don't send the kid... But you refund him for at least some of the airfare.... Seems fair to me... Go on dare ya.
I still think the mother is breaching the orders... Granted dad could have been more honest.... And Frankly smarter... What he didn't think mum would notice that it wasn't him at the airport to pick up the kid?
Last edited:
Generally, I'm inclined to agree that dad probably has grounds for a contravention application here.
If I lived abroad and had a friend returning from Australia at around the same time that I was to see my kid, I would have no hesitation about asking them to accompany my kid on the flight, rather than me spending potentially thousands to fly all the way to Australia, collect the kid at the airport, then fly all the way home again a few hours later. It's just not reasonable when there's a perfectly viable alternative available.
In broader perspective, air travel is also very safe, even for unaccompanied minors. There are supervising airline employees on call at all times, it's a contained space and it's only going to one place.
If I only got to see my kid four times a year and my ex decided they had some veto capability over Court orders about how I choose to bring my kid to me, such that they could unilaterally cancel one of those very few visits on a whim, I would have absolutely no hesitation about filing a contravention application and seeking an order for costs in my favour.
But that is me. Your ex may be far more relaxed about that kind of thing.
You should understand though that having sole parental responsibility does not grant you freedom to deviate from the orders.
If I lived abroad and had a friend returning from Australia at around the same time that I was to see my kid, I would have no hesitation about asking them to accompany my kid on the flight, rather than me spending potentially thousands to fly all the way to Australia, collect the kid at the airport, then fly all the way home again a few hours later. It's just not reasonable when there's a perfectly viable alternative available.
In broader perspective, air travel is also very safe, even for unaccompanied minors. There are supervising airline employees on call at all times, it's a contained space and it's only going to one place.
If I only got to see my kid four times a year and my ex decided they had some veto capability over Court orders about how I choose to bring my kid to me, such that they could unilaterally cancel one of those very few visits on a whim, I would have absolutely no hesitation about filing a contravention application and seeking an order for costs in my favour.
But that is me. Your ex may be far more relaxed about that kind of thing.
You should understand though that having sole parental responsibility does not grant you freedom to deviate from the orders.
Yes you can when threats are made to not return the child.
If this was me in the OP's shoes I'd be withholding and let the other party file contravention orders with the possibility I might have to pay the father's costs as the cost of having peace of mind.
Sole parental responsibility is generally not given without sound grounds. Suspect there is more here than is being told. Normally I'd be saying a parent has no right to unfairly withhold access to the other parent, but based on the OP's posts this is not a normal situation.
Similar threads
