Okay, this is a bit of a grey area because technical interpretation doesn't often bode well with the Court when it comes to contravention proceedings.
Even though the literal interpretation might imply some restriction on who the child travels with when travelling overseas, it's very unlikely that such a restriction is what the Court intended by making that order. The likely intention was to simply allow either parent to take the child overseas, as is the case for most other parenting orders of similar nature, and I think this is arguable because there is no ancillary order that enables either parent to refuse travel except for where notice is not sufficient or full details of the trip have not been provided.
If s/he's given sufficient notice and details of the trip have been provided, your ex has met his/her obligations, so they can travel, and I think you'd be risking contravention proceedings and a costs order against you if you were to refuse travel on grounds that you don't approve of the travel companion.
Even though the literal interpretation might imply some restriction on who the child travels with when travelling overseas, it's very unlikely that such a restriction is what the Court intended by making that order. The likely intention was to simply allow either parent to take the child overseas, as is the case for most other parenting orders of similar nature, and I think this is arguable because there is no ancillary order that enables either parent to refuse travel except for where notice is not sufficient or full details of the trip have not been provided.
If s/he's given sufficient notice and details of the trip have been provided, your ex has met his/her obligations, so they can travel, and I think you'd be risking contravention proceedings and a costs order against you if you were to refuse travel on grounds that you don't approve of the travel companion.
I was given sufficent
Even if he is not travelling himself and I haven't been provided with the person's details?
The key word here is 'with'. Implies the dad must be travelling with the child.
If the dad is not going with the child you may have a reason to validly withhold consent.
But having the child meet their father who is already overseas is not so straight forward. Do you have the full details of the planned trip? Is there any risk the child will stay overseas?
I don't agree that the term 'with' is the critical element in this order. Each parent has responsibility for the child on day-to-day decisions when the child is in their care, which includes who the child is physically around during that time. It's immaterial that mum doesn't trust dad's friend, or dad doesn't trust mum's friend. If it's the child's time with dad, it's up to dad to determine what company the child keeps during that time, and mum is simply going to have to trust that dad isn't going to wilfully expose the child to a risk of harm.
I think you are risking a very expensive and very unnecessary contravention proceeding here. If it goes to Court, the judge is probably just going to clarify that order so you can't have creative licence with its interpretation, and make an order for costs against you, and who knows what that might include? If the father has already purchased the necessary provisions to accommodate the child's travel, you may end up having to reimburse the father for that, in addition to his legal bills.
I'd wager your best option here is to simply accept that, just like you, the father has a responsibility to keep his own child safe. Just because you don't know the person, doesn't mean they pose a risk of harm to your kid.
I think you are risking a very expensive and very unnecessary contravention proceeding here. If it goes to Court, the judge is probably just going to clarify that order so you can't have creative licence with its interpretation, and make an order for costs against you, and who knows what that might include? If the father has already purchased the necessary provisions to accommodate the child's travel, you may end up having to reimburse the father for that, in addition to his legal bills.
I'd wager your best option here is to simply accept that, just like you, the father has a responsibility to keep his own child safe. Just because you don't know the person, doesn't mean they pose a risk of harm to your kid.
Not if the 8 yr child is being sent overseas without a parent to people the child may never have met, particular to a non-Hague convention country. Too many unknowns to comment with accuracy. There's a risk either way - losing a child, or losing money.
In a normal domestic situation I agree with the above, however overseas travel can involve increased risks of a child not being returned. Child brides in middle eastern countries are not unheard of.
Without more information I'd not call it one way or the other.
In a normal domestic situation I agree with the above, however overseas travel can involve increased risks of a child not being returned. Child brides in middle eastern countries are not unheard of.
Without more information I'd not call it one way or the other.
Similar threads
