Adelstein & Byron

Case [2022] FedCFamC1F 26


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

Details
AGLC
Adelstein & Byron [2022] FedCFamC1F 26
Case
[2022] FedCFamC1F 26
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Adelstein & Byron, the mother and father were engaged in a dispute over the care, welfare, and development of their child, X. The case was heard in the Family Court of Australia. The mother sought to relocate to the B Region, a significant distance from the father, which would affect the child's contact with both parents. The father opposed the relocation and sought primary care of the child.

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

The mother made other allegations of significant violence such as choking, pulling of hair, death threats, slapping, hitting, and punching. None of these allegations are reiterated or referred to in her trial affidavit. EVIDENCE The mother and the father were each cross-examined, as were their respective parents however not the maternal grandmother. Dr Q who prepared the family report marked Court Exhibit 1, was cross-examined. The material read for the parties was as follows: For the mother: (a)Affidavit filed 13 October 2021 and exhibits(b)Tender bundle of the same date; (c)Affidavit of her father 7 October 2021 and exhibits ; (d)Affidavits of Ms W and Ms U were not read (e)A financial statement of the mother filed whilst the hearing was conducted; (f)Amended response filed 5 November 2021; (g)Counsel’s case outline; and(h)No exhibits were tendered. For the Independent Children’s Lawyer: (a)Expert Report prepared by Dr Q, dated 20 January 2021, marked Court exhibit 1; and(b)Counsel’s case outline. For the father: (c)Affidavit filed 31 August 2021 and 3 November 2021 with annexures ;(d)Affidavit of the paternal grandmother filed 31 August 2021;(e)Financial statement filed during the proceedings;(f)A tender bundle and a supplementary tender bundle; (g)Counsel’s case outline; and(h)Exhibits 1-6. Report of Dr Q Dr Q a Child and Adolescent and Adult Forensic Psychiatrist prepared a report and gave evidence. Dr Q’s report concluded:...It is my opinion X should continue to live with her mother. The reason for this is that X’s mother is a primary attachment figure. Given the deleterious effect on Ms Byron’s mental health due to the current relationship between herself and the father which I understand to be a consequence of both parties’ personality vulnerabilities it is my opinion her parenting capacity will be enhanced if she is permitted to relocate to the B Region. She will have access to the emotional and practical support that she requires to continually effectively parent X…She will also have more time to spend with her daughter as she will have to work fewer hours [and she is struggling financially in Sydney]…I understand the father will be able to have regular access to X as he is financially able to visit her in the B Region…His current employment entitlements would allow him to continue to visit her regularly…[and she] would be able to visit him in Sydney… Based on my assessment of X her attachment relationships with both her parents and the collateral information provided I form the opinion X will navigate such changes effectively. (line 1300-1310, page 40-41) At the conclusion of cross-examination to which I will later refer, particularly by Ms Lawson on behalf of the father, Dr Q could not support the mother relocating to the B Region given the serious concerns Dr Q had to accept were evident as to the mother’s capacity to promote the relationship of X with the father over such a distance and the lies that the mother had told Dr Q which Dr Q had accepted carte blanche.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.