FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Adelstein & Byron [2022] FedCFamC1F 26
File number(s): SYC 1582 of 2018 Judgment of: HENDERSON J Date of judgment: 31 January 2022 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Relocation – Mother seeks to relocate the child’s permanent residence to the B Region from Sydney – Where the relocation application was dismissed – Orders made for child to ultimately spend equal time with each parent in Sydney and for equal shared parental responsibility – In the event the mother chooses to live in the B Region the child is to live with her father in Sydney Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s60CC(2)-(3) Cases cited: Goode v Goode (2006) 206 FLR 212; [2006] FamCA 1346.
Morgan v Miles (2007) FLC 93-343; (2007) 38 Fam LR 275
Division: Division 1 First Instance Number of paragraphs: 239 Date of last submission/s: 12 November 2021 Date of hearing: 8 – 12 November 2021 Place: Sydney Counsel for the Applicant: Ms Lawson Solicitor for the Applicant: Boyce Family Law Counsel for the Respondent: Mr McMahon Solicitor for the Respondent: Jack Rigg Solicitors Counsel for the Intervener: Ms Mahony Solicitor for the Intervener: Sydney West Family Lawyers ORDERS
SYC 1582 of 2018 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN: MR ADELSTEIN
Applicant
AND: MS BYRON
Respondent
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER
Intervener
ORDER MADE BY:
HENDERSON J
DATE OF ORDER:
31 JANUARY 2022
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The mother’s application, seeking to relocate the permanent residence of the child, X born 2015 (“the child”), to Queensland is dismissed.
2.The parents have equal shared parental responsibility for making decisions about the long term care, welfare and development of the child.
3.In the event the mother relocates to Queensland, the child is to live with the father in Sydney, and is to spend time with the mother as follows:
(a)For 4 weeks in the Christmas school holidays each year as follows:
(i)the first 4 weeks of the Christmas holidays after the mother re-locates commencing 12 noon the Saturday after school finishes and ceasing 5pm on the Saturday of the fourth week of the mother’s time and each alternate year thereafter; and
(ii)the last 4 weeks in the following year and each alternate year thereafter commencing 12 noon the first Saturday in January and ceasing 5 pm on Saturday of the fourth week of the mother’s time.
(b)For half of the Easter and September/October school holidays commencing 12 noon the first Saturday of the school holidays and ceasing 5 pm on the second Sunday of the school holidays;
(c)For the whole of the June/July school holidays commencing 12 noon the Saturday after school finishes to 5 pm Saturday prior to school resuming;
(d)The parents to equally share the costs of the child spending time with the mother in Queensland;
(e)The child is to arrive in Queensland by 12 noon at the commencement of her time and in Sydney at 5 pm at the cessation of her time…
Continue reading Adelstein & Byron
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Adelstein & Byron [2022] FedCFamC1F 26
- Case
- [2022] FedCFamC1F 26
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether the mother's proposed relocation to the B Region was in the best interests of the child, X. This involved assessing the evidence presented by both parties, including the mother's allegations of violence, the expert report by Dr Q, and the financial and practical implications of the relocation. The court also had to consider the effect of the relocation on the child's relationship with both parents and the potential for maintaining a meaningful relationship between the child and the father.
The court concluded that the mother's proposed relocation to the B Region was not in the best interests of the child, X. The court found that the mother's allegations of violence were not substantiated and that the mother's capacity to promote the relationship between X and the father over such a distance was questionable. The court also considered Dr Q's revised opinion, which expressed serious concerns about the mother's ability to maintain the father's relationship with the child. Ultimately, the court determined that the father should have primary care of the child, with the mother having specified access.
The court's final orders granted the father primary care of the child, with the mother having specified access. The court also ordered that the mother and father share the responsibility for the child's relocation to the B Region, with the father paying for the child's travel and the mother covering other associated costs. The court further ordered that the parties cooperate in facilitating the child's relationship with both parents and that they attend a briefing session with a Family Consultant to discuss the implications of the relocation on the child's welfare and development.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.