How the QLD public service views the travel is up to them. They may allow the travel, they may not. Their choice. Disease does not respect family court orders and I do not see why QLD should make any exceptions for family visitations.
Maybe, but the fact is that QLD has made an exception
For families caught up in this, the family court says they should be guided by the relevant states restrictions ….. The relevant state (QLD) has decided that they WILL make an exception for a person to fulfil a
legal obligation relating to shared parenting or child access, even from a nominated hotspot (that person will however still be subject to quarantine requirements)
The family court says that a parenting order creates a
legal obligation to ALL who are affected by it, & that not complying has legal consequences, right up to & including imprisonment
Thing is, visiting a child is not a duty (what you called a "legal obligation relating to child access").
Rather, It's a right - a right created by the Parenting Order.
Obligations are different to rights. Depending on orders, one parent often has an obligation to facilitate access for the other parent. The person with the right of access can elect to take up that right or not. Their choice
I understand that the weight for compliance is heaviest on the lives with parent, but BOTH parents need to be able to rely on the orders & there is no differentiation in the act between parties to an order, not in their legal obligations nor their ability to file a contravention …. Consider for example, a lives with parent who structures their work/travel/caring for another family member etc, around their child spending time (as ordered) with the other parent, & that parent just decides when they will choose to ‘take up that right’ …. Would love to see how that argument would go down in a contravention hearing.
So help me out here …. Are you chaps seriously saying that where a parenting order exists, the primary carer (lives with) parent is the only party that has a legal obligation, & the other can just choose to either follow the orders …. or not? ..... Because that’s what I’m reading…
Now I can direct you both to any number of sections of the family law act that will totally rebut that idea …… but rather than that, if the suggestion that in parenting orders there is no legal obligation that applies to both parents is more than a mere opinion, I (and I’m sure others with orders) would love to be shown a link or two to any piece of legislation, law, principle?, that you chaps are drawing this notion from… TIA