Our approach was straightforward: expose the lack of evidence and challenge the father’s conduct head-on.
First, we demonstrated there was no prima facie case for abduction. The father’s claim was built entirely on secondhand rumour, not evidence. The Court had already refused the ex parte application the night it was heard — yet the child’s name was somehow placed on the airport watchlist regardless. Our role was to ensure the Court addressed this directly and ordered the child’s immediate removal from the watchlist.
Second, we drew the Court’s attention to the father’s pattern of behaviour. It emerged that the mother’s own Notice of Risk had flagged the father’s repeated abduction claims as a potential mental health concern. The Court noted that the father’s conduct in pursuing the watchlist application — particularly after the Court had explicitly declined to make such an order — could be characterised as system abuse and was relevant to the broader family violence issues to be determined at the final hearing.
Third, we supported the appointment of an Independent Children’s Lawyer. Given the complexity of the family violence allegations and the concerning nature of the father’s conduct, we agreed that an ICL should be urgently appointed to independently assess the child’s best interests ahead of the final hearing.
The father’s application was dismissed in its entirety. The Court ordered the child’s name be removed from the airport watchlist immediately and found there was no real risk of abduction.
The Judge expressed serious concern about the father’s conduct — specifically, how the child’s name ended up on the watchlist after the Court had explicitly refused to make such an order. The Court noted this behaviour could constitute system abuse and would be a relevant consideration at the upcoming final hearing regarding family violence and long-term parental decision-making.
An Independent Children’s Lawyer was urgently appointed to ensure the child’s interests were properly represented at the final hearing.
The Court must be satisfied there is a prima facie case — meaning real, credible evidence — before placing a child on the watchlist. In this case, the Court found no such evidence existed and dismissed the application.