Adamson & Adamson

Adamson & Adamson involved an appeal against parenting orders made by the Family Court. The dispute centred on whether the trial judge had erred in making a coercive order for the mother to relocate the child's residence, and in assessing the reasonable practicability of relocation within the meaning of s 65DAA. Additionally, the appeal questioned whether rare or exceptional circumstances existed to justify the coercive order and if there were adverse credit findings against the mother.

The legal issues revolved around the trial judge's discretion in making coercive relocation orders and the assessment of reasonable practicability. The court also examined the necessity and appropriateness of credit findings against the mother, and whether the judge's reasons were consistent. The appeal further addressed whether the trial judge erred in making adverse findings about the mother’s credit and whether those findings were necessary for the disposition of the case.

In allowing the appeal, the court held that the trial judge erred in making the coercive relocation order and in assessing reasonable practicability. The court found that the trial judge had not adequately considered the father's willingness and ability to provide care, and had not sufficiently justified the coercive order. The adverse credit findings against the mother were deemed unnecessary and inappropriate. The court concluded that the trial judge's reasons contained inconsistent findings, impacting the legitimacy of the decision. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted for re-hearing before a different judge. Costs certificates were granted to both parents for the appeal and the re-hearing.