Child Relocation & Travel Consent | Family Law Act 1975

The term covers two related but distinct situations that Australian practitioners treat separately. A relocation means a change of the child's primary residence that meaningfully affects the other parent's ability to spend time with them, whether that is a move interstate or a move from Sydney to Perth. Travel consent, by contrast, deals with a defined trip: the child leaves and returns on set dates, usually for a holiday or to visit family. The two are frequently confused, and the confusion has consequences, because the legal test for a permanent move is far more demanding than the test for a fortnight in Bali.

This agreement is a private consent document, not a court order. It records that both parents, or every person with parental responsibility, agree to the proposed move or trip on stated terms. It sits alongside your broader parenting arrangements and can be attached to a parenting plan or used to support a passport application. Where you already have court orders that restrain overseas travel, a signed consent agreement is the mechanism the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) expects you to use before the child departs. For couples still working out their day-to-day arrangements, pairing this with a properly drafted parenting plan under section 63C of the Family Law Act gives the travel terms a stable foundation to sit on.

The governing statute is the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), and everything flows from the concept of parental responsibility. Unless a court order says otherwise, each parent has parental responsibility for a child under 18, which means each parent has a genuine say in major long-term issues, including where the child lives and whether the child travels internationally. The 6 May 2024 reforms introduced by the Family Law Amendment Act 2023 repealed the old section 61DA presumption of equal shared parental responsibility, so the court no longer starts from an assumption that decisions must be joint. What remains is the paramount test: the best interests of the child under section 60CC. Relocation cases now turn on that test alone, weighed against a child's right to a meaningful relationship with both parents and their right to safety.

International travel carries its own hard edges. Where parenting orders are in force, sections 65Y and 65Z of the Act make it a criminal offence, punishable by up to three years' imprisonment, to take or send a child overseas without the written consent of each person concerned or an order of the court. The same three-year penalty extends under sections 65YA and 65ZAA to retaining a child abroad beyond the agreed period. Passports add a second layer. Under the Australian Passports Act 2005 (Cth), the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade will not issue a child's passport unless every person with parental responsibility consents, or a court order permits it. If consent is refused, the remaining path is a specific-issue order under section 65D of the Family Law Act, or an application under the special-circumstances provision in section 11(2) of the Passports Act. The Australian Passport Office sets out the statutory consent requirements for a child's passport in detail, and a signed consent agreement is precisely the evidence it looks for. A worried parent can also apply to have the child's name placed on the Family Law Watch List, which directs the Australian Federal Police to stop the child leaving from any departure point in Australia.

The most common trigger is an overseas holiday after separation. One parent wants to take the child to see grandparents abroad, and the other, reasonably, wants dates, a return flight and an address before agreeing. A written consent agreement turns a tense phone call into a documented arrangement that satisfies both the other parent and the passport office. The second frequent scenario is a proposed relocation within Australia, where a parent takes a job in another state or wants to move closer to family support. Here the document records the agreed new living arrangements and the revised time the other parent will spend with the child, so the move does not silently erode contact.

A third situation is the passport application itself. Many separated parents only discover the consent rule when they lodge the form and find both signatures are required. Having a standing agreement avoids the scramble. Fourth, blended families and new partners often prompt a review of old travel arrangements that no longer fit, and updating the paperwork is cheaper than a dispute. Watch this closely if court orders or pending proceedings already exist: in that case consent is not merely polite, it is the line between a lawful trip and a criminal offence under section 65Y. One edge case worth flagging is the parent who fears the child will not be returned. If that risk is real, a consent agreement alone is not enough, and you should combine it with a Watch List application before anyone books a flight. Documenting the underlying care arrangements first, ideally through a separation agreement made under the Family Law Act 1975, gives the travel consent a clearer context.

• The identification of the parties and the child names every person with parental responsibility, not just the parent proposing the trip. A consent that omits a parent who still holds parental responsibility is worthless to a passport office, because section 11 of the Australian Passports Act 2005 requires each such person to consent in the prescribed manner.
• The scope of consent states plainly whether you are authorising a temporary trip or a permanent relocation. The distinction matters legally, and a document that blurs the two invites argument later about what was actually agreed.
• The travel itinerary and dates set out departure and return dates, destination countries, and accommodation or contact details overseas. A vague "sometime in the school holidays" is the clause most likely to unravel; specific dates give the consent teeth and let the other parent hold the travelling parent to a return.
• The passport authorisation records that each parent consents to the issue or use of the child's Australian passport, mirroring the language the Australian Passports Act 2005 expects so the document can accompany the application.
• The maintenance of the relationship clause preserves the non-travelling parent's contact during the trip, covering video calls, agreed check-ins and, for relocations, revised time arrangements. This addresses the best interests factors the court weighs under section 60CC.
• The return undertaking and dispute clause confirms the child will be returned by the stated date and sets out what happens if plans change, reducing the risk of an innocent delay being read as an unlawful retention under section 65YA.

Family law is federal in Australia, so the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) governs parental responsibility and overseas travel consent uniformly across New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. A consent agreement drafted to the Act works the same in Brisbane as in Hobart, which is one of the genuine advantages of the national scheme. The practical differences appear in relocation cases, where distance is measured against local realities. A move within greater Sydney rarely counts as a relocation at all, while a move from regional Queensland to Melbourne almost always does, because it collapses the other parent's ability to maintain regular contact.

Western Australia is the standing exception every practitioner learns early. For ex-nuptial children, family law in WA is administered under the state's own Family Court Act 1997 (WA) rather than the Commonwealth Act, though the substantive principles on parental responsibility and travel closely track the federal position. The Australian Passports Act 2005 still applies nationally, so passport consent rules do not change across the border. For married couples, the Commonwealth Act governs even in WA. The upshot is that a consent agreement should reference the correct governing legislation for your family's circumstances, and a WA family dealing with an ex-nuptial child should have the document framed against the state Act. Beyond that single carve-out, the document travels well between states, which is exactly why a nationally drafted template suits most families.

You start by identifying everyone who holds parental responsibility for the child, since the template needs each of them named and each of them signing. From there you choose whether the agreement covers a temporary trip or a permanent move, because the template adjusts the clauses accordingly and prompts you for the details each situation demands. For travel, you enter the destination, the departure and return dates and the overseas contact address; for a relocation, you set out the new residence and the revised arrangements for the other parent's time. The passport section then records each parent's consent to the child's passport being issued or used, in language the passport office recognises. You add any conditions, such as agreed video calls or a requirement to share the flight itinerary, then both parents sign and date the document. If court orders or pending proceedings already govern the child, you should confirm the agreement sits consistently with them before anyone relies on it. The finished agreement downloads in Word and PDF, so you can adjust wording during negotiation and then finalise a clean signed version. Where the trip involves ongoing financial arrangements, it can help to have your broader terms recorded through a binding financial agreement under Part VIIIA of the Family Law Act alongside it.

The mistake that causes the most damage is treating a holiday consent and a relocation consent as interchangeable. They are not. A parent who signs a loosely worded document thinking they agreed to a three-week trip can find the other parent arguing it authorised a permanent move, and the ambiguity favours whoever is already living the new arrangement. The second common error is omitting a person who still holds parental responsibility, often a parent the family assumes is uninvolved. Because the Australian Passports Act 2005 requires every such person to consent, a passport application built on an incomplete agreement simply stalls, and the trip collapses. A third recurring problem is vague dates. "During the summer break" gives no fixed return, and under section 65YA a delayed return can be read as unlawful retention even where nobody intended harm.

Parents also underestimate the criminal dimension when orders already exist. Where parenting orders are in force, taking a child overseas on a private handshake rather than written consent is not a technicality, it is an offence under section 65Y carrying up to three years' imprisonment. Finally, families sometimes rely on a consent agreement in situations that genuinely call for a court order, such as where there is a real risk the child will not be returned. In that case the paperwork should be paired with a Watch List application, and the surrounding parenting terms are best set down first in a parenting plan reflecting the current best-interests framework so the travel consent rests on something solid.