Watchlist Order Stays in Place: Why the Court Kept an Urgent Travel Injunction Without Deciding Who Was Right

In Curtin & Bush (No 2) [2026] FedCFamC2F 1165, Judge O'Shannessy dealt, in ex tempore reasons given on 23 July 2026, with the return of an urgent ex parte injunction (an Airport Watch List Order) restraining a child's removal from Australia until 6 July 2027. The injunction had been made on 6 July 2026 without notice to the father ([2]–[3]; Order 1). The result: the injunction remains in force, the application to discharge it was dismissed, and a transcript of the hearing is to be made available to the parties and to the Court on the next occasion (Orders 1–2). The important point is that an interim risk assessment can keep a protective order in place while expressly deciding nothing about who is telling the truth ([9], [14]–[15]). All paragraph references below are to the judgment.

Why it matters: When a watchlist or travel injunction is made urgently and without notice, the return hearing is not a mini-trial. This judgment shows the Court weighing "all of the risks" on limited interim material, keeping the order alive, and sending the real fact-finding to a later, properly prepared hearing ([9], [12], [14]). It also shows what the Court will not do at that stage: it made no findings on the competing accounts about a travel notice, where the parties lived, or where the passport was ([11], [15]).

🧩 Facts and Issues

The parties and the proceedings

Ms Curtin (the mother) is the applicant and Mr Bush (the father) is the respondent. The judgment is published under a pseudonym with approval under s 114Q(2) (cover notes).
The proceedings concern one child, X. Final parenting orders made in 2021 provide that the child lives with the mother, spends alternate weekends with the father in school terms, and spends school holiday time with him ([4]; Note B).
This was a short interim hearing by web conference. The judge delivered the reasons orally and they were later settled in writing from the transcript ([1]).

What happened on 6 July 2026

At an urgent ex parte hearing on the evening of 6 July 2026, which lasted about sixteen minutes, the judge made an Airport Watch List Order and an injunction restraining either parent, or at least the father, from removing the child from Australia ([2]).
The father had no notice of the hearing. The judge intended the order to include liberty to apply by email urgently ([3]).
The effect was that the father and the child were prevented from boarding an international flight that evening ([3]). The reasons for making the order are in a separate published judgment of 7 July 2026, which this judgment refers to but does not repeat ([2]).

After the order

The father has since kept the child in his care and has not returned the child to the mother ([5]; Note B).
The father says he has "very good reason" and that the child has told him he is not safe in the mother's care. The mother denies that and says the child is safe ([5]). These are competing accounts, and the Court did not decide between them ([12], [15]).
The mother has taken legal advice and has issued, or is trying to issue, an amended application seeking a recovery order as well as continuation of the watchlist order ([10]; Note C).

The competing accounts about travel

The father's account. He says that on 3 June 2026, while living in the same property as the mother, he put a notice dated 3 June 2026 on the table. He says this gave written notice that permitted overseas travel under the existing orders. He says he then took the child's passport from the kitchen drawer within the mother's sight, so she knew he had it and that he intended to take the child to Country C for the school holidays and return ([7]).
The mother's account. She categorically denies ever receiving or seeing the note, and says she first saw it electronically on the day of the hearing, when it was emailed to her during the hearing. She says she did not see the passport being removed and that it was kept in a different, hidden place ([8]).
Where the Court left it. Doing its best on "limited urgent interim" material, the judge noted that, apart from the alleged delivery of the notice, there was no actual communication from the father to the mother that he was leaving with the child on 7 July 2026 ([8]).
The parents also dispute whether they lived under the same roof from mid-2024 until very recently ([11]).

Issue

Should the ex parte Watchlist Order (the injunction restraining removal of the child from Australia) remain in place after the return hearing, given that the Court could not make findings of fact ([6], [9])?

⚖️ Applicable Law – Legislation, Regulations, Rules

This is a short ex tempore decision and it does not analyse the statutory source of the power to make the order. The legislation it does mention is:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss 65DA(2) and 62B: the Court's notes record that the particulars of the obligations the orders create, and of the consequences of contravening them, are set out in Annexure A and included in the orders (Note G).
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), s 102NA: the notes record the cross-examination restrictions that apply in family violence matters and the Commonwealth cross-examination scheme, which the Court explains for unrepresented parties (Notes H–K).
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), Part XIVB and s 114Q(2): the publication restrictions and the approval of the pseudonym (cover notes).

The reasons also refer, in general terms, to the child's best interests and to "balancing all of the risks" in assessing risk ([14]). They do not set out the statutory best-interests provisions.

📌 Precedents Relied On

None. The reasons do not cite any case. They rely on the earlier published reasons of 7 July 2026 for the ex parte order and on the judge's own assessment of risk on the limited interim material ([2], [14]).

🧠 Analysis

Issue

Should the Watchlist Order, made urgently and without notice, continue until further order, even though the Court could not decide the disputed facts about the father's travel notice, the passport, or the parents' living arrangements ([6], [9], [11], [15])?

Rule

The reasons are short and do not set out a detailed legal test. On the face of the judgment, the approach is:

The hearing is an interim hearing, and the Court "cannot make findings of fact" on it ([9]).
The decision is limited to the return of the ex parte injunction, described for convenience as the Watchlist Order ([6]).
The Court assesses risk "in all the circumstances", balancing all of the risks ([14]).
Allegations that are not tested are not decided. Those matters are left for a later, orderly hearing on affidavit evidence ([9], [12]).

Application

The Court decided only the return of the injunction

Judge O'Shannessy was careful about scope. He said he was "only dealing with the return of the ex parte injunction" ([6]), and the Court's notes record that the Court "has only dealt with the return of the Watchlist Order on this hearing" (Note A). He did not decide the recovery order, did not decide the father's safety concerns about the child returning to the mother, and did not order a Child Impact Report, although he thought one could help ([12]–[13]).

The father's retention of the child fed the concern

The judge treated the father's retention of the child after the order was executed as relevant to risk. He said that the fact the father had not returned the child to the mother "contributes to concern that the child will be removed permanently or semi-permanently from the Commonwealth of Australia" ([6]). The father's explanation, that the child had said he was not safe with the mother, was recorded as his account and was not decided ([5], [12]).

The risk was assessed as "more or less" what it was on 6 July

The judge was satisfied that the assessment of risk "in all the circumstances remains more or less as I regarded it" in the urgent reasons of 6 July 2026 ([14]). He accepted that the father gave an "articulate and clear denial of any risk", but concluded that there was "some risk" the child might be removed from Australia despite that denial ([14]).

No overseas holiday with either parent for now

The judge went further than the father's own proposed trip. He was not satisfied that, "in the current tumult and shouting of the trouble and disputes between the parents", it would be appropriate "right now or in the immediate future" for the child to leave on a holiday overseas with either parent ([14]). That is a statement about the present conflict. It is not a finding about either parent's good faith.

No findings on the travel notice, the passport or the living arrangements

The judge was explicit that he was "not making any factual findings" on four disputes ([15]):

the controversy about the notice;
where the parents had been living for the last two years;
where the passport was; and
whether the mother knew, or should have known, that the father had the passport, or whether the father was "effectively sneaking off with the passport without telling the Mother".

He also could not find on the parents' conflicting accounts of their living arrangements since mid-2024 ([11]). Despite making no findings, "the Watchlist Order will remain in place" ([15]).

Next steps were left to a properly prepared hearing

The judge expected the mother's recovery order application to be listed urgently once filed, and said the parents would need "to put their story on affidavit, so that the next judicial officer can deal with the matter in an orderly manner" ([12]). He expressed the hope that the parents would "attend some mediation or conciliation conference and get the affairs of the child in order" ([9]). The matter was listed for a first return before a Senior Judicial Registrar on 13 August 2026 (Note F), and a transcript of the interim hearing was ordered to be made available to the parties and to the Court on the next occasion (Order 2).

Conclusion

The Watchlist Order stays until further order, and the application to discharge it was dismissed (Order 1). The Court reached that outcome on a balancing of risk at an interim hearing, while making no factual findings about the travel notice, the passport, the parents' living arrangements, or the father's safety concerns ([14]–[15]).

This judgment does not decide that the father intended to take the child abroad permanently. It does not decide that the mother is a safe or unsafe carer. It does not decide where the child should live. Those questions remain open for the recovery order application and later hearings ([9]–[12]).

🧠 Take-Home Lesson

An urgent ex parte order is not the end of the story, but it is not automatically undone at the return. If the risk of removal still cannot be excluded on the interim material, the order can stay ([14]).
"No factual findings" cuts both ways. Neither parent was vindicated and neither was criticised on the disputed events ([15]). Do not read this decision as proof of what happened.
A clear denial of risk does not end the risk assessment. The Court accepted the father's denial was articulate and clear, but still found "some risk" ([14]).
Keeping the child after an urgent order can add to the concern. The Court said the father's retention of the child contributed to the concern about removal ([6]). Anyone who thinks a child is unsafe needs a lawful, evidence-based path, such as an application, rather than self-help.
If you rely on a written travel notice, be able to prove how and when it was given. Here the delivery of a notice dated 3 June 2026 was flatly disputed, and the mother said she first saw it during the hearing ([7]–[8]). This is a practical point from the facts, not a holding of the Court.
Put the story on affidavit. The judge said the parents needed to put their accounts on affidavit so the next judicial officer could deal with the matter in an orderly way ([12]).
Mediation and conciliation get an express nudge. The judge hoped the parents would not take the dispute to a fact-finding hearing and would attend a mediation or conciliation conference ([9]).
For support workers and McKenzie friends: help a parent separate the three tracks. These are the injunction, the recovery order application, and the factual disputes that still have to be proved.

"A court can keep a child safe from removal today without deciding who is right about yesterday."

"No findings means no winner. The evidence still has to be put on affidavit."

Comments (0)