🧭 Introductory Paragraph

In Ritter & Hermann (No 3) [2026] FedCFamC1F 19, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) exercised its powers under the Australian Passports Act 2005 (Cth) to authorise the issue of a child’s passport without maternal consent, following clear and unexplained non-compliance with earlier court orders. The case is a sharp reminder that parenting disputes about international travel are not determined by obstruction, delay, or opposition in principle—particularly where a party has already agreed to comply and then failed to do so. The Court also imposed fixed costs against the non-compliant parent, reinforcing the consequences of disregarding interim orders.

🧩 Facts and Issues

Key Facts

• Final parenting proceedings concluded early in December 2025, with judgment reserved until 27 February 2026 (¶1–2).
• At the end of trial, the father sought interim time with the child and an order that the mother sign a passport application and produce the child’s expired passport (¶3).
• The mother did not oppose signing the passport application and expressly confirmed she could do so and could produce the expired passport (¶4–5).
• On 16 December 2025, the Court made orders requiring her to sign the passport application and provide the expired passport (¶6).
• The father’s solicitor followed up requesting supporting documents to progress the passport application (¶7).
• Although the father’s time with the child occurred as ordered (¶8), the mother failed to sign the passport application and failed to produce the expired passport, despite multiple attempts to contact her (¶9).
• The father filed an Application in a Proceeding on 23 December 2025 seeking enforcement and alternative relief (¶10).
• At the hearing on 19 January 2026, the father pressed only the order under s 11(1)(b)(i) of the Australian Passports Act (¶11).
• The mother opposed the application, arguing it should be dismissed or adjourned until final judgment (¶13).

Issues

1. Was the mother in breach of the existing court order requiring her to sign the passport application and produce the expired passport?
2. Should the Court authorise the issue of a passport for the child notwithstanding the mother’s lack of consent under s 11(1)(b)(i) of the Australian Passports Act 2005 (Cth)?
3. Should the mother bear the costs of the enforcement application?

⚖️ Law

Statutory Framework

• Australian Passports Act 2005 (Cth) s 11(1)(b)(i)
• Allows a court to authorise the issue of an Australian passport for a child without the consent of a person whose consent would otherwise be required.

Family Law Principles

• Court orders must be complied with unless varied or set aside.
• Objection to an outcome (e.g. overseas travel) does not justify non-compliance with procedural orders facilitating administrative steps.
• Where litigation is necessitated by a party’s non-compliance, costs may follow the event.

🔍 Application of Law to Facts

• Justice Carew found that an order was clearly made on 16 December 2025, and the mother did not comply (¶14).
• Crucially, the mother did not seek to excuse her breach; she simply objected to the child travelling overseas (¶14).
• The Court emphasised that issuing a passport does not authorise travel, particularly while a Family Law Watchlist order remained in place (¶14).
• There was urgency in securing the passport given the father’s potential relocation after final judgment and the likelihood of future overseas travel regardless of outcome (¶15).
• Given the mother’s demonstrated non-compliance, the Court concluded the most effective and proportionate response was to authorise the passport under s 11(1)(b)(i) (¶16).
• The Court declined to make further coercive document-production orders, expressly noting it had “no confidence that the mother will comply” (¶16).
• The father was required to incur costs solely because of the mother’s breach, justifying a costs order fixed at $1,611.50 (¶17).

🧠 Analysis of the Judgment & Judicial Reasoning

Justice Carew’s reasoning is firm, practical, and enforcement-focused:

• The Court drew a clear distinction between:
• Administrative facilitation (obtaining a passport), and
• Substantive parenting outcomes (whether the child may travel overseas).
• The mother’s attempt to delay the passport issue until final judgment was rejected because it conflated these two distinct issues (¶14–15).
• The judgment reflects judicial intolerance for passive resistance—where a party agrees to orders, then quietly fails to comply.
• The refusal to order further document production underscores an important point: courts are not obliged to issue futile orders where non-compliance is likely (¶16).
• The costs order serves both compensatory and deterrent functions, reinforcing that enforcement applications should not be necessary in the first place (¶17).

📚 Precedents Relied On

• None expressly cited.
• The decision rests squarely on the clear statutory power in the Australian Passports Act 2005 (Cth) and orthodox enforcement principles.

🎓 Take-Home Lesson Learned

• A parent cannot veto administrative steps like passport issuance by simply withholding consent in defiance of court orders.
• Courts will readily use s 11(1)(b)(i) where consent is unreasonably withheld or orders are breached.
• Maintaining a Family Law Watchlist order can neutralise travel risk while still allowing compliance with procedural requirements.
• Non-compliance with interim orders is likely to attract adverse credibility findings and costs consequences.
• Saying “I’ll try” in court creates an expectation of compliance—failure to follow through carries real consequences.