Andris and Dellis - [2013] FCCA 414

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ANDRIS & DELLIS

[2013] FCCA 414

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Parenting – relocation Sydney to Melbourne – one of the children with special needs – mother socially and emotionally isolated in Sydney – mother seeking to relocate closer to family supports in Melbourne – mother in difficult financial circumstances in Sydney rental market – limited financial support from father – father’s lack of empathy with mother’s circumstances – father’s questionable priorities – real prospect of mother’s parenting capacity being diminished if remains in Sydney – risk of adverse impact on children – relocation allowed.

Legislation:
Family Law Act 1975, ss.60B, 60CA,60CC, 61DA, 65DAA, 95AAA and Part VII

AMS and AIF (1999) 24 Fam LR 756
Goode v Goode (2007) 36 Fam LR 422
MRR v GRR [2010] HCA 4
B and B: Family Law Reform Act 1995 (1997) 21 Fam LR 676
Morgan v Miles (2008) Fam LR 275
Taylor v Barker (2008) 37 Fam LR 461
Malcolm & Monroe [2011] FamCAFC 16
F & F [2007] FMCAfam 831
Collu & Rinaldo [2010] FamCAFC 53
Mazorski v Albright[2007] FamCA 520
McCall & Clark [2009] FamCAFC 92

Applicant:

MS ANDRIS

Respondent:

MR DELLIS

File Number:

SYC 2843 of 2011

Judgment of:

Judge Foster

Hearing dates:

21 and 22 February 2013

14 March 2013

Date of Last Submission:

19 April 2013

Delivered at:

Sydney

Delivered on:

30 May 2013

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Respondent:

Ms Spain

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Horizons Community Legal Centre

Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer:

Mr Wong

Solicitors for the Independent Children’s Lawyer:

Mahony Family Lawyers

ORDERS

That the mother be permitted to relocate the residence of the children [X] born [in] 2002 and [Y] born [in] 2003 (“the children”) to the Greater Melbourne area and that the mother be permitted to enrol the children at [B] School.
That the mother and father have equal shared parental responsibility for the children.
That the children spend time with the father as agreed between both the mother and father in writing including SMS or email and in default of agreement:
(a)During the Victorian school terms on not less than two weekends each term with such weekends to include any long weekends (such as Labour Day, Queens Birthday, Anzac Day etc.) occurring during such terms and the Fathers Day weekend but otherwise on the third and sixth weekends from Friday evening (or Thursday if Friday is a pupil free day) until Sunday evening (or Monday if a long weekend or pupil free day) and that for the purposes of the children’s weekend time with the father in Sydney the mother and father shall organise and book flights as early as practicable to reduce cost and shall use their best endeavours to ensure that the children arrive in Sydney by no later than 7.00pm on the commencing day of weekend time and return to Melbourne by no later than 5.00pm (6.00pm daylight saving time) on the last day of such weekend time.
(b)For one half of Victorian school holiday periods as agreed between the mother and father in writing including SMS or email and failing agreement the first half of such periods commencing by no later than 7.00pm in Sydney on the evening that term ends to about 5.00pm (6.00pm daylight saving time) in Melbourne on the midpoint day in even numbered years and the second half of such periods commencing at about 11.00am in Sydney on the midpoint day until about 5.00pm (6.00pm daylight saving time) in Melbourne on the day prior to resumption of school term in odd numbered years.
(c)At such times and on such occasions as the father may be in Melbourne upon him giving to the mother not less than seven days notice in writing and in that event the children shall spend time with the father for a period of not more than three consecutive nights on other than a weekend with the father to collect the children from school on the first day of such period and return the children to school on the last day of such period.
(d)At such other times and on such occasions relating to the children’s education, health, sporting activities, extracurricular activities, religious education or other occasions relating to the welfare of the children where the attendance of either or both parents is to be reasonably expected.
(e)That the father pay for cost of travel and facilitate the children’s return flights from Melbourne to Sydney and return on the first occasion and each alternate occasion thereafter of the children spending time with him and the mother pay for the cost of travel and facilitate the children’s return flights from Melbourne to Sydney and return for each intervening occasion.
(f)That the mother shall pay for the costs of her own flights on each occasion if the children require accompanying travel from Melbourne to Sydney.
(g)That the father pay for the costs of his own flight on each occasion if the children require accompanying travel from Sydney to Melbourne.
(h)That the mother and father be at liberty to contact the children through telephone, Skype or e-mail at a time as agreed between both parties and failing agreement every Monday, Wednesday and Saturday between 6.00pm and 7.00pm when the children are not otherwise in their care, and the party caring for the children shall facilitate such communication by ensuring the availability of the children, with the other party to initiate contact with the children and for the purposes of this order the parties shall keep each other informed at all times of their landline telephone numbers, mobile telephone numbers and e-mail addresses.
(i)That the party not caring for the children shall be at liberty to Skype with the children on Christmas day, Fathers/Mothers day, the parents birthday and the children’s birthdays at a time agreed between the parties and failing agreement from 10.00am until 11.00am and if a school day between 6.00pm and 7.00pm.
That in the event of the children suffering a medical emergency requiring medical attention while spending time with either parent:
(a)The other parent is to be notified as soon as practicable.
(b)The other parent is to be provided with the full details of the practitioner or medical facility upon which the child attends and as soon as possible.
(c)The medical practitioner or medical facility be advised that the other parent has access to the child’s records and the information obtained with them upon request.
That each party is hereby authorised to obtain from the children’s schools all notices, letters, school reports and invitations and to attend activities to which parents are reasonably expected to attend.
That the parties advise the other of any change of residential address not less than 14 days before such change.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Andris & Dellis is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AT SYDNEY

SYC 2843 of 2011

MS ANDRIS

Applicant

And

MR DELLIS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Proceedings

These are parenting proceedings in relation to the children [X] born [in] 2002 and [Y] born [in] 2003.
The primary issue for determination is the question of the mother’s wish to relocate to Melbourne with the subject children.
The mother commenced proceedings by application filed on 9 December 2011 and in that application she sought orders that provided for:
a)The mother to be permitted to relocate with the children to Melbourne;
b)That the mother and father have equal shared parental responsibility for the children;
c)That the children primarily reside with her and spend time with the father essentially each alternate weekend and half of the Victorian school holidays and on other special days;
d)That the children attend [B] School in Melbourne;
e)That in the alternative if the mother was required to remain in Sydney that the children primarily reside with her and that the children spend time with the father alternate weekends, on Monday and Wednesday afternoons and half of the New South Wales school holidays.
The father in his response filed on 29 February 2012 sought orders that primarily provided for:
a)The mother and father to have equal shared parental responsibility;
b)That the children live with the mother;
c)That the children spend time with the father each Monday Wednesday and Friday from after-school until 7.00pm and each Saturday or Sunday from midday to 7.00pm and on other special days.
The proceedings were first listed before the Court on 7 March 2012 and on that date the Court ordered the parties to attend a child inclusive conference with a family consultant and proceedings were adjourned to 3 May 2012 for further directions.
On 3 May 2012 the Court ordered that there be a family report prepared and that, as both parties were unrepresented and the issues for determination included relocation, an Independent Children’s Lawyer be appointed for the children. The Court noted that the agreement of the parties comprised in the child inclusive memorandum and that the parties intended to implement arrangements in relation to the children in accordance with that agreement during the adjournment.
The child inclusive memorandum noted that the parties had reached agreement on a temporary basis until the issue of the mother’s relocation was resolved and that arrangements for the children would be as follows:
a)That the children continued to live with the mother;
b)That the children spend time with the father on Monday Wednesday and Friday is from after-school until 7.00pm;
c)That the children will commence staying overnight with the father from after-school Friday until 9.00am Saturday commencing on 20 April 2012;
d)That the father would try to negotiate with his parents that the children might stay overnight for two nights in approximately 3 months time;
e)That the father will take the children for a few days holiday during the forthcoming school holidays.
Otherwise the memorandum noted that the substantive issue remaining in dispute was the mother’s wish to relocate to Melbourne. The memorandum noted that issues relating to the children included:
a)That the child [X] has high functioning autism and requires classroom assistance and community support;
b)That the parents agree that his present school [P] School caters for him and his needs well;
c)That the father [is an autism support worker] which he says helps him as a parent and the child [X] as well;
d)That the children have grown up in Sydney and that the father has been a very significant carer to the children;
e)That a full assessment is needed to gauge the possible impact of relocation on the children’s relationships and [X] especially given his autism.
The memorandum noted that the issues impeding resolution included:
a)Financial limitations on both parents;
b)That the mother feels that she is in need of the financial support of living with her parents in Melbourne and that she is unable to continue to afford the high rents of Sydney. She also needs the emotional and practical support that her parents can provide;
c)That the father says he is unable to move to Melbourne and that he said he now has contacts and is earning a small income [as an autism support worker] in Sydney that is not available in Melbourne.
The proceedings were stood over for further directions to 24 July 2012 so as to facilitate the intervention of the Independent Children’s Lawyer.
On 24 July 2012 the Court adjourned the proceedings for further directions to 13 September 2012 noting that there was no appearance by the Independent Children’s Lawyer and that the father had not as yet forwarded his documents to Legal Aid New South Wales as previously ordered.
On 10 September 2012 the family report by family consultant Ms S dated 5 September 2012 was released to the parties and to the Independent Children’s Lawyer.
On 13 September 2012 the matter was adjourned for further directions to 28 November 2012 so as to facilitate a legal aid intervention conference to be conducted with the assistance of the Independent Children’s Lawyer.
On 28 November 2012, the matter remaining unresolved proceedings were listed for hearing on 21 February 2013 allocating one day plus for trial.
The hearing proceeded on 21 and 22 February 2013 and then on 14 March 2013. At the conclusion of the hearing the Court made orders that:
a)By 22 March 2013 the Independent Children’s Lawyer file and serve a minute of orders sought;
b)That the applicant mother file and serve written submissions by 2 April 2013;
c)That the respondent father file and serve written submissions by 12 April 2013;
d)That the Independent Children’s Lawyer file and serve the written submissions by 19 April 2013.
Throughout the course of the proceedings both parties remained unrepresented until the final hearing at which time the father was represented by counsel.

Proposals

The Mother

In final submissions the applicant mother sought orders in summary that provided:
a)That the mother be permitted to permanently relocate with the children to Melbourne;
b)That the mother and father have equal shared parental responsibility;
c)That the children spend time with the father in Victoria as agreed between both parties during the Victorian school term with the father giving seven days notice and failing agreement the children shall spend time with the father on the fifth week of the Victorian school term from the end of school day Friday until Sunday 6.00pm;
d)That the children spend time with the father for one half of Victorian school holiday periods as agreed between the mother and father and failing agreement the first half of such periods excluding the Christmas holidays with the children in the Christmas holidays to spend time with the father for the first half of the school holiday period in odd numbered years and the second half in even numbered years;
e)That the father pay for cost of travel and facilitate the children’s return flights to and from Melbourne and Sydney on the first occasion and each alternate occasion thereafter and the mother pay for the cost of travel and facilitate the children’s return flights for each intervening flight;
f)That each party pay for their own costs of any flights required by them to facilitate these orders;
g)That the mother shall pay for the costs of her own flights on each occasion if the children require accompanying travel from Melbourne to Sydney;
h)That the father pay for the costs of his own flight on each occasion if the children require accompanying travel from Sydney to Melbourne;
i)That the mother and father be at liberty to contact the children through telephone, Skype or e-mail at a time as agreed between both parties and failing agreement every Monday, Wednesday and Friday from 6.00pm until 7.00pm when the children are not otherwise in their care, and the party caring for the children shall facilitate such communication by ensuring the availability of the children;
j)That the party not caring for the children shall be at liberty to Skype with the children on Christmas day, Fathers/Mothers day, the parents birthday and the children’s birthdays at a time agreed between the parties and failing agreement from 10.00am until 11.00am;
k)That in the event of the children suffering a medical emergency requiring medical attention while spending time with all living with either parent:
i)The other parent is to be notified as soon as practicable;
ii)The other parent is to be provided with the full details of the practitioner or medical facility upon which the child attends and as soon as possible;
iii)The medical practitioner or medical facility be advised that the other parent has access to the child’s records and the information obtained with them upon request;
l)That each party is hereby authorised to obtain from the children’s schools all notices, letters, school reports and invitations and to attend activities to which parents are invited;
m)That the parties advise the other of any change of telephone number or residential address within 48 hours of such change.

The Father

The father sought final orders that in summary provided:
a)That the mother and father have equal shared parental responsibility;
b)That the children live with the mother;
c)That the children spend time with the father during each school term:
i)Each Monday Wednesday and Friday from after-school until 7.00pm;
ii)Each alternate weekend from after-school Friday until 7.00pm the following Monday;
iii)At other times as are agreed between the mother and father.
d)That the children spend time with the father during each school holiday period:
i)During week one from 9.00am to 7.00pm on Monday, 9.00am to 3.00pm on Tuesday, 9.00am to 3.00pm on Wednesday and 9.00am to 3.00pm on Thursday;
ii)During week to from 9.00am to 7.00pm on Monday, 9.00am to 3.00pm on Tuesday, 9.00am to 3.00pm on Wednesday, 9.00am to 3.00pm on Thursday and from 9.00am on Friday until 7.00pm the following Monday;
iii)Otherwise as agreed between the mother and father;
e)That otherwise the children spend time with the father on Christmas day, Father’s day and the children’s birthdays as agreed between the mother and father;
f)That each parent shall ensure the other parent can contact the children by telephone at any time up to 8.00pm on any day the children are with the other parent;
g)That each parent will permit the children to contact the other parent by telephone at any time when the children are in their care in expressed a wish to speak to the other parent;
h)That each parent will keep the other informed of:
i)Their residential address and a contact telephone number;
ii)Any significant injury or illness suffered by the children and details of all medical treatment given to the children;
iii)All school, extra curricular and sporting activities in which the children are involved.

Independent Children’s Lawyer

In final submissions the Independent Children’s Lawyer sought orders that in summary provided:
a)That the mother be permitted to permanently relocate with the children to reside in Melbourne;
b)That the mother and father have equal shared parental responsibility;
c)That the children spend time with the father in Victoria as agreed between the mother and father during the Victorian school term with the father giving seven days notice and failing agreement the children shall spend time with the father on the fourth week of the Victorian school term from the end of the school day Friday until Sunday 6.00pm;
d)That the children spend time with the father for one half of all Victorian school holiday periods being the first half in odd numbered years and in alternate years thereafter and the second half in even numbered years and in alternate years thereafter;
e)That the father shall pay for cost of travel and facilitate the children’s return flights to and from Melbourne to Sydney on the first occasion and each alternate occasion thereafter and the mother shall thereafter payee for the costs of travel and facilitate the children’s return flights for each intervening flight;
f)That each party pay for their own costs of any flights required by the to facilitate these orders;
g)That the mother pay for the costs of her own flight on each occasion if the children require accompanying travel from Melbourne to Sydney;
h)That the father pay for the costs of his own flight on each occasion if the children require accompanying travel from Sydney to Melbourne;
i)That each party shall be at liberty to contact the children through telephone, Skype or e-mail at a time as agreed between both parties and failing agreement every Monday, Wednesday and Friday from 6.00pm until 7.00pm when the children are not otherwise in their care, and the party caring for the children shall facilitate such communication by ensuring the availability of the child;
j)That the party not caring for the children shall be at liberty to Skype with the children on Christmas day at a time agreed between the parties and failing agreement from 10.00am until 11.00am;
k)That in the event of the children suffering a medical emergency requiring medical attention while spending time with all living with either parent:
i)The other parent is to be notified as soon as practicable;
ii)That the other parent is to be provided with the full details of the practitioner or medical facility upon which the child attends as soon as practicable;
iii)That the medical practitioner or medical facility be advised that the other parent has access to the child’s medical records and of the information obtained with them upon request;
l)That each party is authorised to obtain from the children’s schools all notices, letters, school reports and invitations and to attend activities to which parents are invited;
m)That the parties advise the other of any change of telephone number or residential address within 48 hours of such change occurring.

Background

The mother is aged 33 years and is employed as an [omitted]. The mother’s employment is presently part-time and she earns an income of approximately $400 per week from that employment. Otherwise she receives government assistance in the form of family assistance and rent assistance in the sum of about $444 per week and voluntary payments of child support from the father in the sum of $50 per week.
The mother resides in rented premises paying the sum of $450 per week to provide accommodation that is as best as she can afford and suitable for the ongoing accommodation of herself and the children who are in her primary care.
Otherwise the mother has a 13-year-old motor vehicle and little other assets to speak of and superannuation accrued in the sum of about $3000.
To provide for herself and the children the mother has over the period since separation accumulated significant credit card debt which as at the date of trial was in the sum of approximately $23,000.
Overall there is no doubt that in her present circumstances she is struggling to provide adequate and proper accommodation for the children and to adequately provide for the children financially.
The father is aged 38 years and is self-employed as a [omitted].
In his financial statement filed on 8 February 2013 he asserts that his income on a part-time basis as a [autism support worker] is in the sum of $65 per week and in his self-employed occupation as a [omitted] he asserts he earns $336 per week in addition to which he receives a new start allowance of $85 per week, making a total of $486 per week. From this income he runs a motor vehicle and pays $50 per week to the mother by way of voluntary child support.
Apart from his motor vehicle he has about $40,000 in accumulated superannuation and is debt free.
The father asserts that his working career was mostly in [omitted] positions and in 1997 he moved from Sydney to Melbourne following the failure of his first marriage. It was there that he met the mother in these proceedings.
The parties commenced cohabitation in late 1997 and married [in] 1999.
The mother acknowledges that it was agreed between herself and the father that she would be the primary income earner and the father will devote more of his time to the care of the children. The mother asserts notwithstanding that, she retained a major care role with the children while undertaking full-time employment to support the family.
Initially the parties resided in Melbourne but following the father suffering from bouts of depression, the parties in 2004 moved to Sydney in order that the father might be closer to his extended family. The mother asserts that this was for a trial period of two years and that the father agreed to return to Melbourne if the mother was unhappy in Sydney.
In 2005 the eldest child [X] was diagnosed within the autism spectrum disorder.
In 2007 the mother commenced part-time work in order to be available to spend more time in the day to day activities and care of the children. At this time she requested the father to obtain part-time employment so that he could contribute equitably to the family’s expenses. The mother’s change in employment arrangements facilitated her undertaking further studies. The mother changed her working hours so that she worked from 7.00am until 3.00pm each day.
The mother is critical of the father for not actively seeking out appropriate employment so as to contribute to household and living expenses.
The party separated on 16 March 2009 and were divorced on 9 January 2012.
The subject children are of the two children of that relationship.
Subsequent to the eldest child being diagnosed within the autism spectrum the father became involved in a parent support group for children with autism.
Thereafter from 2008 whilst working in part-time or casual roles the father was significantly involved in the day to day care of the children.
The parties subsequently enrolled the child [X] into preschool where a special needs teacher was available to assist the child in his communication and social skills.
In 2006 in the mother sought for the family to return to Melbourne. At that stage the parties made enquiries as to the facilities and services that might be available for the child [X] in Melbourne and decided to remain in Sydney where the child was offered a place in the [S] School for Children with autism.
Subsequently the father began work as a volunteer in autism support areas and obtained a paid role within the federally funded autism support program “[omitted]”. The father’s role in this regard has expanded in that by 2011 he had [omitted] and he had various support groups that he ran as a volunteer.
In 2009 there were difficulties in the relationship between the father and mother and the mother informed the father that she wanted to end the marriage.
For the sake of the children, in particular the child [X], the parties agreed to separate under the one roof but devoted themselves to the needs of the children.
It was at this time that the mother revived her wish to relocate to Melbourne to be closer to her extended maternal family including aunts and uncles and cousins and the maternal grandmother. The children have continued to visit their relatives in Melbourne with their mother 3 times per year and have stayed with the maternal grandmother and their uncle during this time. Members of the maternal family had been previously employed in educational capacities and are trained to work with various children with special needs including those with autism. [X] has a cousin [name omitted] who has aspergers syndrome and the mother asserts that theirs is a special relationship.
The child [X] has transitioned through the autism special school into his local mainstream school, the [P] School. It appears common ground between the parties that the child has settled well into that school.
As he had done previously the father became engaged in the parents and citizens organisation at the primary school and managed the school’s [omitted]. The father continued his other activities within the various autism support groups and continued his activities with [A] referred to below.
In connection with his activities he has obtained some qualifications as [omitted]. In 2012 he completed a Diploma in [omitted].
The father registered his activities as a not for profit organisation involving other parents within his network. In January 2012 his organisation “[A]” ([A]) was registered as a not for profit charity and by then was involved in the support of some 300 families across the Sydney metropolitan area.
Regrettably the father’s activity with [A] is a non-paid position but he derives income through government grants or community centres paying him to [omitted]. The father gives evidence that subject to future funding there is a prospect that he may derive a reasonable salary from his organisation’s activities in the future.
The father acknowledged in evidence that he had historically been employed in [omitted] roles and in that regard has strong qualifications. His more recent involvement was in the [omitted] industry but he asserts in relation to that industry technology has now moved on and [omitted] are no longer staffed by people. His recollection is that his last full-time employed salary package was in the order of about $55,000 per annum.
The father acknowledged that should he seek to return to the commercial work force then opportunities in management would be available to him in Sydney and/or Melbourne at a salary of about $55,000 per annum.
The father agreed with the contention by the independent children’s lawyer that if he was to return to the workforce at a level of average weekly earnings he would be in a much better position to support the mother and his children if he were to abandon his present involvement in his charity. He conceded that he was in no position to pay or even contribute to the mother’s rent notwithstanding that he was living rent-free in his parent’s home in exchange for his day to day assistance provided to his parents particularly in terms of their age and health issues. Such a circumstance of course being similar to the mother’s proposal within the maternal grandmother’s home in Melbourne.
At present he receives a nominal payment of $100 per week from his charity and otherwise submits to the charity invoices for his activities undertaken on behalf of the charity using his own ABN number as a sole trader.
At the time of hearing the father had not filed his 2012 tax return but estimated that in terms of his invoiced work he would receive about $16,000 per year in addition to the $100 per week or $5200 per year he receives as a notional payment from the charity, in addition to which the charity covers his travel expenses, his Internet and telephone expenses.
The father estimated that he was working between 40 and 50 hours per week for his organisation.
The father agreed that by reason of his desire to remain involved in community work that his capacity to provide financial support for the children was severely compromised.
The father now asserts that his activities with [A] has cemented his ties to Sydney and provides him with a future and a career path. He asserts that his network cannot be abandoned or recreated in another city. Unfortunately this appears to place his own interests over and above those of his children.
However in terms of financial support before physical separation the family relied heavily upon the wife’s income.
Following the party’s physical separation in October 2011, the father acknowledges that the mother has had to rent a home to provide primary accommodation for her and the children and that has forced her to struggle financially. The mother had the overnight care of children since physical separation for 13 nights each fortnight until December 2012 when the father increased his overnight time.
The father asserts that she has the option of improving her position by renting a home unit instead of a home with a yard for the children. He further says that since meeting with the family report writer he had offered to increase his voluntary child support of $50 per week to $100 per week.
The father says that by having the children on a more regular basis after school and on a daily basis during school holidays he is providing meals for the children that should reduce the mother’s expenses. However the reality is that the overwhelming financial and parenting support for the children are provided by the mother and the father’s lack of financial assistance means that the mother must work as much as she is able to make ends meet.
The mother says that the children complain that the father spends little quality time with them and he constantly takes them to support/social groups where he is talking to other parents rather than interacting with his own children.
The father says that his parents have recently completed a large granny flat as an extension to their property for the father to reside in and where the children can stay with him if required. This provides to the father rent-free accommodation and enables him to remain close to his elderly parents when they need him.
The father says he is not in a position to relocate to Melbourne should the wife be permitted. He says that his life is in Sydney and his work is in Sydney. He says it is his intention to develop a career and a profile as an authority in the field of autism support services and that his organisation would not survive without his input. He asserts that the mother’s proposal would be placing the children, particularly [X] in uncertain circumstances. However the father acknowledges that the children would get to know their Melbourne cousins better and he considers the wife’s sister’s family to be wonderful people.
The father asserts that the maternal grandmother is in poor health and would have a limited relationship with the children. On the other hand he asserts that the children have a strong relationship with their paternal grandfather and their paternal cousins.
The father further asserts that in the event that the mother relocates to Melbourne without the children he would assume the role of primary carer including funding flights to Melbourne for the children to visit the mother three times a year as well as providing electronic contact.
It was conceded by the father in cross-examination that his asserted weekly expenses in relation to the children in his care in the sum of $110 per week would be significantly reduced in the event that the children were in Melbourne and that the savings to him thus generated would be more than adequate to provide for return trips to Melbourne for the purposes of time with the children.
Otherwise he suggested that he would save as much as he possibly could to facilitate time with the children should they be living in Melbourne. At present the father is paying some $50 per week for the storage of his personalty pending completion of the granny flat to be occupied by him. It must be assumed that once the granny flat is available for occupation that those fees will no longer be paid that the father will have available to him a further sum of about $2600 per annum.
The mother proposes that she and the children will reside with the maternal grandmother on a rent-free basis. She and the children would have available to them three dedicated bedrooms and two dedicated bathrooms on one acre of grounds.
She says that her brother works as a [omitted] at the local primary school at which she proposes to enrolled children. The school is 5 minute drive from the maternal grandmother’s home.
The maternal grandmother was a [omitted] for a period of about 20 years dealing with the children with special needs on a daily basis. The mother rejected any suggestion that with her and the children living in the maternal grandmother’s home the maternal grandmother might struggle by reason of her health difficulties.
Otherwise, the mother says that by reason of her difficult financial circumstances she may be forced to move from her present residence to a cheaper area that may be an hour or two drive from the father’s residence. She cited [omitted] south of Sydney and [omitted] on the mountains west of Sydney as possible locations where she could afford appropriate accommodation for herself and the children.
It was suggested to the mother that there were properties available in the [P] or surrounding area that would be suitable. Without inspecting the suggested properties the mother was unable to concede to that contention. Indeed it was conceded by the father that he had not inspected the suggested properties for their appropriateness for accommodation for the mother and children and he raised criticisms at the standard of accommodation occupied by the mother and the children in the present circumstances at the high rent presently being paid by the mother. The father described the property occupied by the mother as “a very bad property”, a property that she could not afford and was not up to scratch.
The father steadfastly refused to consider a move from his local residential area. His primary concern is were the stability of the children in terms of schooling, his continuing involvement in his charitable work and his home, that is his granny flat attached to his parent’s home.
The husband had not contemplated moving elsewhere in the greater Sydney metropolitan area or shortly outside that area in the event that the mother was required to move by reason of her financial circumstances.
The court is concerned that the father demonstrated little reflective capacity in relation to the needs of the mother and the children in their present circumstances.
The mother appropriately conceded that her proposed move to Melbourne would be a significant dislocation particularly for the child [X]. However she asserted that a dislocation in any event was quite probable as it would be necessary for her to move to a more affordable area in Sydney or nearby to Sydney if her relocation application was refused. So in any event the child would be experiencing a significant dislocation.
The mother expressed confidence that the child would transition without difficulty from his present circumstances to the new circumstances proposed by her, yet she acknowledged the father’s concerns.
The mother had made enquiries of the school proposed by her for the children should she relocate to Melbourne and had spoken to the school principal. She was informed that the school has experience with children with autism there being presently three children in that spectrum at the school. The mother expresses the belief that the school has the requisite experience to provide a good educational outcome for [X] particularly as he is now in a mainstream class at his present school and is progressing well.
The mother openly conceded that she had discussed the proposed relocation with the children. She asserted that she was reluctant simply to confront the children with the reality of relocation if the court allowed same. More particularly in relation to the child [X] she was of the view that the discussion with him was necessary to promote a good transition for the child in circumstances where he needs time to adjust and to process the concept of relocation. It was agreed between the parties that the children would be told of the mother’s proposals and in the circumstances of this matter the court considers that such a course was appropriate.
As a consequence of her further studies the mother will shortly complete a degree course, as a [omitted] that she says will afford to her enhanced employment opportunities in Melbourne. The mother proposes not to work in Melbourne for about 12 months until such time as she completes her studies.
By reason of her not having to pay rent whilst living in her mother’s home she will be financially better off during this period than she is now.
At the conclusion of the studies she is confident that she will obtain appropriate full-time employment at a salary that she conservatively estimates to be about $60,000-$70,000 per annum on a full-time basis but initially she proposes to work part-time upon obtaining employment. The mother did acknowledge that similar job opportunities would be available to her in Sydney upon her completing her studies.
In the interim the mother conceded that she may need to obtain part-time employment in Melbourne to supplement her government benefits and the modest sum received from the father.
The mother asserted that she would be financially able to contribute to the costs of the children travelling to Sydney to spend time with the father for at least three periods each year.
The father has struggled to earn enough to support himself for some time and has remained on unemployment benefits since separation under the one roof in 2009 until the hearing. His current financial statement is indicative of meagre sources of income including government funded benefits.
The mother asserts that the father suffers from various medical conditions including diabetes, sleep apnoea, depression, recurring kidney stones and is concerningly overweight.
The mother says that to her observation over the period of their relationship and thereafter the father’s health difficulties have significantly affected his ability to provide for the children through adequate employment, time spent with the children and the type of activities in which he is capable of engaging.
The mother further expresses concerns as to the father’s mental and emotional health observing that he has exhibited irrational irritable and frequent mood swings and erratic behaviour in relation to the children. However she has no fears that the father would harm the children.

Family Consultants Memorandum

On 3 April 2012 the parties attended upon a family consultant for a child inclusive conference. At that time the children were aged ten and eight and both attending [P] School.
The memorandum noted that the parties had reached agreement on a temporary basis until the mother’s relocation application was determined that the parenting arrangements for the children would be in summary as follows:
a)That the children will continue to live with the mother;
b)That the children will continue to spend time with the father on Monday, Wednesday and Friday from after school until 7.00pm;
c)That the children will commence staying with the father overnight on Friday nights until 9am Saturdays each alternate Saturday;
d)That the father would try to negotiate with his parents that the children may stay overnight from 1 to 2 nights Friday and Saturday in approximately 3 months time;
e)That the father will take the children on a few days holiday during the forthcoming school holiday period.

The memorandum noted that the primary issue in dispute was the mother’s wish to relocate to Melbourne. The memorandum acknowledged that both parties said that they communicate and co-operate well.
The memorandum noted the following issues in relation to the children:
a)The child [X] has autism (high functioning) and requires classroom assistances and community support;
b)That both parents believe that his current school caters for him and his needs well;
c)That the [is an autism support worker] that he says helps him as a parent, as well as [X];
d)That the children have grown up in Sydney and that the father has been a significant carer to the children;
e)In that a full assessment is needed to gauge the possible impact of the mother’s relocation proposal on the children’s relationships and [X] especially given his autism.
The memorandum noted that issues impeding resolution were:
a)Financial limitations on both parents;
b)The mother feels that she is in need of the financial support of living with her parents in Melbourne and that she is unable to continue to afford the high rents of Sydney and that she needs the emotional and practical support that they can provide;
c)The father said he is unable to move to Melbourne and that he now has contacts and is now earning a small income with the autism network in Sydney that is not available in Melbourne.

The Family Report

The Family Report by family consultant Ms S was dated 5 September 2012 and released by the court on 10 September 2012.

The Mother and her family

The consultant spoke to the maternal grandmother Mrs A then aged 66. The consultant observed that Mrs A presented as warm and concerned for the well-being of her daughter and grandchildren. Mrs A confirmed that she suffers from poor health including chronic asthma and that she presently requires the assistance of her son Mr A on a daily basis for some everyday tasks. She believes that should her daughter be permitted to relocate to Melbourne to reside with her that her daughter and Mr A would share the day to day tasks involved in her care.
Mr A, the paternal uncle, was interviewed by the family consultant. He presented as thoughtful, cooperative and articulate. He has worked full-time at the school where the mother proposes the children attend to the past four years and also works in the after-school program. He is supportive of the mother and children living with the maternal grandmother and believes that the mother would benefit emotionally from being with her mother and a reduction in the cost of living in Melbourne as opposed to Sydney.
On interview the mother, observed the family consultant, presented as cooperative, polite and gentle. She appeared to be trying to balance the need for social, emotional and practical support with the children’s needs to spend time with their father. The mother explained to the family consultant that she had not been successful in making friends or creating a supportive network in Sydney and since separation she has been more isolated and feels less supported as a single parent than when married. She simply cannot afford to continue living in her rented premises at [P].
The mother reported the family consultant believes that she would be able to help the children to adjust to changes around relocation and their going to a new school. She said that her brother had highly recommended the staff and school programs of the [B] School to her.

The Father

The family consultant noted that the father presented as articulate and cooperative. He was emotional at the prospect of the children and mother moving to Melbourne. He asserted that during the relationship he had alternated with the mother in the role of primary carer for the children over a number of years. He believed that the children would suffer a sense of loss if he was not in their lives on an almost daily basis.
The father expressed his concerns as to his ability to engage with the child [X] who was nearing puberty if the mother’s relocation was permitted.
The father was clear that he could not afford to travel to Melbourne or for the children to travel to and from Melbourne on a frequent basis or at all. He believed that such travel would be destabilising for the children and that the child [X] would not cope with the flights.
The father was positive in his perception as to the benefit derived by the children from the father’s engagement through the [A] and was concerned that the children could be isolated and lonely in a semirural environment without their father, in a new school where they would have no long-term friends.
The father was unable to conceive of his life in Sydney without the children. He appeared physically shaken, observed the family consultant, at the thought of them relocating to Melbourne. The father expressed the view that he was well at the time of the family report but at the time of separation he had become depressed.
In 2012 he had seen a clinical psychologist on a number of occasions and had been taking antidepressant medication as prescribed by his general practitioner.
The father said that he wished to support the mother to stay in Sydney. He informed the family consultant that his parents had agreed to the children staying in their home for additional nights each alternate fortnight. This had only recently commenced but he asserted that it had gone well and that he was hopeful that the children could progress towards spending three or four nights at a time with him.
He offered to increase his financial contribution to the children of either child support agency from $100 a fortnight to $200 a fortnight and offered to pay for all of the children’s education expenses such as school fees uniforms and any additional expenses. He was hopeful that his [A] organisation would become more financially viable in the future.
The father was positive in relation to the mother describing her as a good mother who adores the children. His view was that he and the mother worked well as a team towards the best interests of the children.
The father expressed concerns about the children living in the maternal grandmother’s home due to her health circumstances and that this may detract from the mother’s capacity to care for the children. The father expressed the view that the mother was already experiencing difficulty with some of [X]’s disturbing and more aggressive behaviours especially aggressive behaviour towards the youngest child [Y].
The father was particularly disparaging about the paternal uncle Mr A asserting a belief that he was unreliable, disorganised and an alcoholic.
The father rejected the proposition that he stay at the maternal grandmother’s home to spend time with the children in Melbourne if the mother was permitted to relocate. He further asserted that he and the children have a poor record of attempting electronic communication particularly Skype and he believed that a geographical separation would see his relationship with the children deteriorate.
The paternal grandparents, aged 73 and 67, were interviewed and were supportive of the father’s position in that the father may remain living in their home for as long as he needs to but they were supportive of the father’s long-term plan to find his own accommodation. They were of the belief that the father of the children would benefit from being more independent of them.

The Children

The child [X] then aged 10 presented as happy, spontaneous and cooperative but as having some difficulty in interacting and communicating. The child’s parents and teachers believe, noted the family consultant that he has progressed remarkably well in that his communication and social interaction has improved and he now has a number of new friendships.
Both parents expressed concerns about the child’s aggressive behaviour towards [Y], [X] hitting himself and using threatening behaviour and language towards himself. The child was seeing a school counsellor and more recently a clinical psychologist for these problems.
In interview the child described school as “good” and that he has a few good friends. The child said that he loves his parents and that they are both “awesome”. His greatest wish is that his parents get back together. The child has thought about living in Melbourne and said that he would like to stay in Sydney and would miss his father and other paternal family members if he moved away. He would like to stay for a few nights longer at his father’s house
The child [Y], then eight years of age presented as shy and unsure of what to say during the interview. The parents noted that she is generally shy when talking to adults but appears more confident with her peers.
[Y] was unsure about her mother’s proposals in relation to Melbourne and appeared uncomfortable about talking about the topic. She said to the family consultant that she liked to be with both of her parents and would like to stay at her father’s more often.
The family consultant’s observations of the parents with both children were uneventful and the children interacted similarly with both parents in an easy conversational manner.
The family consultant expressed the view that overall the children appeared to have a comfortable, warm relationship with both of their parents.

Evaluation

In evaluation and the family consultant observed that both parents impressed as devoted parents.
Both children appear to be happy children who are developing very differently according to childhood milestones. The child [X]’s behaviour and developmental history is consistent with the three symptom clusters of autism: impairments in social interaction; impairments in communication; and restricted interests and repetitive behaviour. The child would most likely require a lifetime of support in these areas.
The family consultant opined that [X] “will benefit from strong, ongoing alliances between his parents, teachers and professionals into the future. It is preferable that [X] remained attending the same school to build on these gains made to date.”
As to the child [Y] her personality and passive behaviour have possibly been shaped, at least in part, by her being a sibling to a child with autism. As such she is at risk of negative emotional and psychological consequences resulting from the attention [X] receives related to his having autism and his aggressive behaviour towards her.
The children, observed the family consultant, appear to have forged strong relationships with both parents. Their age, [X]’s diagnosis and the care history suggests that they need the ongoing care of both of their parents.
If the children moved to Melbourne, the family consultant was of the view that it was possible that the father would relapse into a further cycle of depression and consequently be unable to sufficiently fulfil his parenting and community roles.
The mother’s distress at being away from her own family, particularly in view of her mother’s poor health is entirely understandable, says the family consultant. The stressors on the mother primarily relate to feelings of emotional isolation, lack of social support and financial hardship. That she may feel anxious and tired is also common among parents of children with autism.
It is imperative that the mother is supported to have regular contact with her family members in Melbourne. The family consultant expresses the view that the father’s offer to contribute more financially may allow the mother flexibility to remain living in Sydney while also being able to travel to Melbourne intermittently to visit family members.
The family consultant noted that the father’s concerns about the children coping with travel and him being unable to visit them impress as realistic.
The family consultant concluded that the mother’s proposal with regard to relocation to Melbourne is untested and it is uncertain as to how the children would adapt to the local primary school. It is likely that the level of community involvement and support as provided by the father in Sydney would not be available to the children in Melbourne.
The children, noted the family consultant appear to be doing better this year under the current arrangements that is suggestive that future arrangements should build on what presently suits the children. Future parenting plans should ideally build on the amount of time the children are with the father rather than reduce their time with the father as would be the case if the mother was to relocate.
The family consultant recommended in summary that the children remain living with the mother in Sydney, that the children spend time with the father every fortnight for two nights increasing to three or four nights over the next year as well as during the week on Monday Wednesday and Friday afternoons in accordance with the current arrangements and that the father increase his financial support of the children to allow the mother greater flexibility regarding accommodation in Sydney and regular travel to the extended maternal family in Melbourne.

Exhibits E, F and G

During the course of the mother’s oral evidence the mother presented to the court as calm, considered in her responses and determined to obtain the best outcome for the benefit of her children. Her answers to questions put to her by counsel for the father and counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer were well structured and thoughtful.
Overall the mother impressed as a witness with significant insight into the issues before the Court and a witness of truth.
During the course of her oral evidence the mother introduced into evidence as Exhibit E the Psychometric Assessment Report undertaken in relation to the child [X] on 27 November 2009. As at the date of testing the report demonstrated that the child’s verbal comprehension and working memory skills were within the superior range and were a significant relative strength while his processing speed abilities fall within the extremely low range and are a significant relative weakness. Other testing results indicated that the child’s current adaptive functioning falls within the average range at home (consistent with verbal skills) and average range at school (generally consistent with overall abilities). The child has a significant relative strength in his communication and academic skills - conceptual functioning and it is likely that the school environment offers the child greater opportunities to display these skills. It was recommended that the child would benefit from placement in a mainstream class as this may help to facilitate further development of his skills.
The child [X]’s final year full report for December 2012 was admitted into evidence as Exhibit G. The report demonstrated that the child was performing at a higher level in relation to English, Science and Technology, Human Society and its Environment and Creative Arts and was performing at a sound level in relation to Mathematics and Personal Development, Health and Physical education. The child’s 2011 NAPLAN results (Exhibit F) were consistent with this achievement.

The Family Consultants Oral Evidence

Notwithstanding the recommendations in the family report the family consultant was more equivocal in her oral evidence.
When asked “Given a continuation of positive cooperation between [X], his parents and a school, would you agree that [X] could continue to progress well?” The family consultant responded “In terms of maintaining his relationships with his parents; in terms of continuing to be in a school environment which is sensitive to the needs of his condition; and supportive of him and the progress and is aware of his progress to date. Children with Aspergers Syndrome particularly respond poorly to stressful environments which would include conflict, too much change, too great expectations on them. So the greater stability for [X], the easier his life will be. So in – in general, if you think of those things as principles then you would say maintaining those important relationships, having education, staff and practices which are going to meet his needs and as much stability and as low stress in his life as possible, I would think would be some of the real key features that [X] will need.”
However the family consultant was not able to state with certainty that the children would have difficulty in settling in to a new situation.
Then when asked “Do you agree that there is a possibility that another school and another peer group could be just as beneficial to [X] as his current circumstances?” The family consultant responded, “It is possible. Depending on then the entire contest around that new cohort. We wouldn’t wish [X] to, you know, be in a vacuum in some environment that doesn’t relate to the rest of his life and world, for instance. You know, school placements are – are crucial and they depend on everything else that’s part of the – a child’s life and environment.”
The family consultant was clear that in relation to the children’s ongoing care from a psychological point of view comes about by the parents looking after them for a significant and substantial amount of time and maintaining absolute routine communication between the children and their parents.
The consultant acknowledged that such psychological support could be continued at a distance and that there were certain conditions that make it more possible.
In terms of the children’s travel, particularly [X], if the mother was to relocate to Melbourne, the family consultant acknowledged that particularly in relation to the child [X] there would be some difficulties that would probably require the child to be accompanied by either parent when travelling.
The mother’s stress was acknowledged by the consultant with factors impacting on this stress identified as the current litigation, her wish to relocate to an ill parent in Melbourne and her ongoing financial difficulties.
It was conceded by the family consultant that continuing the mother’s levels of stress in the present circumstances could lead to her being unable to fulfil her parenting and community roles and that such a circumstance particularly as it might impact on the mothers mental health would have a significant negative effect on the children’s well-being.
The family consultant acknowledged that it was imperative that the mother be supported in having regular contact with her family members in Melbourne while also having time to pursue her own adult interests and friendships outside of work and parenting roles.
When questioned in relation to this recommendation, the family consultant acknowledged that it was a forceful recommendation because the mother’s circumstances were clear to the consultant in that the mother needed her primary family support.
The family consultant considered that the mother’s financial capacity to remain in Sydney was an issue and in turn that depended upon whether the father was able to contribute more to the children’s care financially.
Whilst the family consultant was questioned as to whether she considered that the father could relocate to Melbourne she quite rightly indicated that whilst it was considered by her it was never an issue that she was examining in the context of the report and it was made quite clear that she was working on the premise that the father was living in Sydney and would remain doing so.
Questioned on the issue of appropriate accommodation for the children the family consultant was aware of the nature of the accommodation afforded in the maternal grandmother’s home. She opined that “a larger space even to the point of it being a more rural environment is something that seemed to be attractive and a desire.”
In the light of further information provided to the family consultant prior to giving evidence and during her cross-examination by the mother the consultant was questioned as to whether she would reconsider any of the recommendations made to the court in particular that the mother remained in Sydney.

Her response he is instructive:
Well, probably not because a number of the pieces of information that I’ve answered questions on today, I can’t actually know are accurate. That’s probably what the difficulty for me is, however, I can see that, you know, my recommendations aren’t the perfect answer to this quandary, so maybe I could just leave it at that for you. I’m not sure that I can be any more helpful but on that report, I think those recommendations are probably still – and the court will have other information, it will know now things that I don’t know, so I probably can’t add any more than that, I would say.
Questioned by counsel for the father as to the impact of the mother’s proposed changes on the child [X] the family consultant responded:
That is a lot of change. We would – we need to remember that he is familiar, though, with – there is one factor that I have had in my mind too, that he is familiar with his grandmother’s home and does appear to seem to like having been there.
As to the mother’s proposed changes particularly as to schooling for the child [X] the family consultant responded:
That’s a lot of – that’s a lot of changes of school, yes, however, stabilising his education for high school is probably the critical factor for [X], I would say. So making sure that whatever changes occur, whether there are changes within Sydney, Melbourne, who knows where, that once he is on his way, that a suitable high school is found for him and that’s – he stays there.
and as to the mother being “overly optimistic” in her belief that the child [X] would cope well with transitioning to a new school the family consultant said:
I think she has got some – I think mum has some evidence to suggest that [X] can transition well from one environment – school environment to another under very supportive circumstances, obviously where professionals have been involved in facilitating that transition as well…… [X] would have difficulty without his – both of his parents, probably, being involved in whatever he is doing, especially changes – transitions.

The Law

Parenting proceedings are governed by the provisions of Pt VII of the Family Law Act 1975. Section 60CA provides that in deciding whether to make a particular parenting order, the Court is to regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration.
Whilst that is the paramount consideration it is not the only consideration. In AMS and AIF (1999) 24 Fam LR 756 at 792 his Honour Justice Kirby said:
[144] ……a statutory instruction to treat the welfare or best interests of the child as the paramount consideration does not oblige a court, making the decision, to ignore the legitimate interests and desires of the parents. If there is conflict between these considerations, priority must be accorded to the child’s welfare and rights. However, the latter cannot be viewed in the abstract, separate from the circumstances of the parent with whom the child resides.
Section 60B of the Act outlines the objects and principles underlying Part VII of the Act.
(1) The objects of this Part are to ensure that the best interests of children are met by:
(a) ensuring that children have the benefit of both of their parents having a meaningful involvement in their lives, to the maximum extent consistent with the best interests of the child; and
(b) protecting children from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence; and
(c) ensuring that children receive adequate and proper parenting to help them achieve their full potential; and
(d) ensuring that parents fulfil their duties, and meet their responsibilities, concerning the care, welfare and development of their children.
(2) The principles underlying these objects are that (except when it is or would be contrary to a child's best interests):
(a) children have the right to know and be cared for by both their parents, regardless of whether their parents are married, separated, have never married or have never lived together; and
(b) children have a right to spend time on a regular basis with, and communicate on a regular basis with, both their parents and other people significant to their care, welfare and development (such as grandparents and other relatives); and
(c) parents jointly share duties and responsibilities concerning the care, welfare and development of their children; and
(d) parents should agree about the future parenting of their children; and
(e) children have a right to enjoy their culture (including the right to enjoy that culture with other people who share that culture).
In determining what is in a child’s best interests, the Court must consider the matters set out in section 60CC. Section 60CC outlines the primary (sub-s.(2)) and additional (sub-s.(3)) considerations that the Court is to take into account in determining what is in the best interests of the child.
Section 61DA of the Act provides that when making a parenting order, the Court must apply a presumption that it is in the best interests of the child for the child’s parents to have equal shared parental responsibility. The presumption does not apply where there are reasonable grounds to believe a parent has engaged in abuse of the child or family violence and the presumption may be rebutted if the Court is satisfied that an order for equal shared parental responsibility would not be in the child’s best interests. Sections 61DA(2) and (4) provide that this presumption may not apply or may be rebutted in cases of child abuse and/or family violence or when the evidence establishes that it is not in the child’s best interests for it to apply.
In the event that the Court orders the parties to have equal shared parental responsibility, the Court must apply the provisions of section 65DAA which provide for a consideration of the children spending equal time with the parents. If the Court finds that it is not in the child’s best interests or reasonably practicable, then the Court must consider the child spending substantial and significant time with the parents.
The Full Court in Goode v Goode (2007) 36 Fam LR 422, (2006) FLC 93-286 mandated that this legislative approach must be followed in all parenting cases.
The High Court in MRR v GRR [2010] HCA 4 affirmed the legislative pathway.

Relocation

This particular case has as its significant element the issue of relocation.
The jurisprudence (see B and B: Family Law Reform Act 1995 (1997) 21 Fam LR 676, (1997) FLC 92-755; Morgan v Miles (2008) Fam LR 275, (2007) FLC 93-343) is clear in that such cases remain to be determined like all parenting matters by considering the best interests of the child in the context of the legislative framework.
In Taylor v Barker (2008) 37 Fam LR 461 their Honours Bryant CJ and Finn J said:
[53] …… when dealing with a case concerning the future living arrangements for a child, and involving a significant change in the geographical place where the child is to live, the preferred approach according to established principle has been not to deal with that change, or relocation, as a separate or discrete issue, but rather as just one of the proposals for the child’s future living arrangements, at least in so far as that approach is possible: see U & U (2002) 211 CLR 238; 191 ALR 289; 29 Fam LR 74; (2002) FLC 93-112; [2002] HCA 36 and Bolitho v Cohen (2005) 33 Fam LR 471; (2005) FLC 93-224; [2005] FamCA 458.
Their Honours went on to say:
[83] However consistently with what the Full Court said in Goode, the options of the child spending “equal time” or “substantial and significant time” with each parent must now be given separate and real consideration, notwithstanding that a relocation proposal may also have to be given subsequent consideration, with the advantages and disadvantages of that proposal then being balanced against the advantages and disadvantages of an “equal time” or “substantial and significant time” arrangement. Not to approach a case involving a relocation proposal in this way, would devalue the imperative imposed by the Act to consider whether it is in the best interests of a child in a case to spend “equal time” or substantial and significant time” with each parent.
In Morgan & Miles [2007] FamCA 1230; (2007) FLC 93-343, Boland J heard an appeal as a single Judge pursuant to s 94AAA (3) of the Act. At [79] to [81] Boland J identified the relevant principles to be taken into account by a judicial officer when assessing competing proposals about where a child is to primarily reside. Her Honour stated:
In considering whether the child should live with the parent who proposes to relocate a court:
Must be satisfied the parties have, unless an exclusionary circumstance applies, genuinely attempted to resolve the dispute.
Make orders having regard to the child’s best interest as the paramount, but not the sole consideration.
Be guided in its determination by the objects and principles underpinning the legislation. This requires a judicial officer when considering the primary and additional considerations to inform that consideration against a background of the objects including having regard to both parents having a meaningful involvement to the maximum extent consistent with the best interests of the child.
If making a parenting order, or proposing to make an order, apply the presumption, unless excluded by reason of abuse or family violence or rebutted as not in the best interests of the child, that the parties have equal shared parental responsibility for a child.
In making an order for equal shared parental responsibility, have regard to the fact there is no distinction drawn under the Act between interim and final hearing, although such an order may not, in specific cases, be made on an interim hearing.
When dealing with an application involving an intrastate, interstate or international relocation of a child may, in some circumstances, have to craft orders for the allocation of aspects parental responsibility if it is impractical for the parties to equally share parental responsibility, and particular aspects of parental responsibility may, in some cases, need to be exercised solely by the relocating parent if the orders sought are made.
Will carefully weigh and balance the primary considerations and the additional considerations in respect of the competing proposals. Depending on factors such as the age of the child, the wishes of the child, the relationship between the child and a parent, the proposals of the parties, or the proposal found by the judicial officer to be in the child’s best interests, make such order which may provide:
- that the child lives with the parent who wishes to relocate and spends time with, and communicates with, the other parent;
- that the child lives with the non-relocating parent and spend time with, and communicates with, the other parent;
- that the child lives equally with the parents in the existing locale, or lives with one parent and spends substantial and significant time with the other parent in the existing locale;
- the non relocating parent moves to the venue chosen by the relocating parent, and the child lives equally with the parents or lives with one parent, spends time with the other parent.
Because each case presents different facts and issues for determination no precise indicia can be categorically laid down as mandatory requirements requiring more or less weight in a relocation case, but developing law should provide general guidance.
These principles were cited with approval in Malcolm & Monroe [2011] FamCAFC 16.
In F & F [2007] FMCAfam 831 Neville FM (as he then was) sought to bring together principles at that time significant to relocation cases (footnotes omitted):
There is a growing body of judicial authority that provides the relevant legal principles to be applied in relocation cases, and the issues that regularly arise concomitantly in them, such as parenting orders. Drawing from the authorities listed, those principles may be summarised as follows:
In the absence of legislative direction, no single factor is dispositive of decisions governing residence of a child in a context of the proposed relocation of the parent with whom the child resides. (AMS v AIF, Kirby J, [143]; A v A, [91]; cf. Powell v Ptolemy, [48]).
The over-arching issue is to ensure that any parenting order is in the best interests of the child. (AMS v AIF, Kirby J, [144]; U v U, Gummow & Callinan JJ, [80], Hayne J, [171]; Bolitho v Cohen, [71]; Powell v Ptolemy, [40]). This is also to say that if there is a conflict between the welfare or best interests of the child, on the one hand, and the legitimate interests and desires of the parents, on the other, priority must be given to the best interests of the child. (AMS v AIF, Kirby J, [144]; Hayne J, [217-219]; A v A, [67] cf. Goode v Goode, [72]).
Freedom of movement of parents is a significant priority. That freedom is linked with the object of family law legislation to facilitate parties to a broken relationship to start a new life for themselves, including the possibility of forming a new relationship “free from unnecessary interference from a former spouse or partner or from a court.” (AMS v AIF, Kirby J, [145]. On “freedom of movement” generally, see AMS v AIF, Gleeson CJ, McHugh & Gummow JJ, [40-45]; Gaudron J, [96]; U v U, Gummow & Callinan JJ, [89]; cf. Powell v Ptolemy, [36]). Inhibition of movement may impinge upon the happiness of the custodial parent, which may in turn be transmitted to the child. (AMS v AIF, Kirby J, [145]). Freedom of movement, however, takes second place to the paramount interests of the child.
There is no presumption in favour of a custodial parent to reside wherever he or she wishes. (AMS v AIF, Kirby J, [146]).
The applicant who seeks to relocate need not establish “compelling reasons” for such a move. (AMS v AIF, Gleeson CJ, McHugh & Gummow JJ, [47]; Gaudron J, [92]; Kirby J, [191] & [195]; Hayne J, [209]; A v A, par.85; U v U, Gummow & Callinan JJ, [82]). Nor does either party bear an onus to establish whether to relocate is, or is not, in a child’s best interests. (A v A, [96]).
Transport and modern means of telecommunication may be relevant factors in making proper arrangements (“new and different facilities of access and contact ... with the other parent”) as between a child and his or her non-resident parent, especially in relation to relocation within Australia. (AMS v AIF, Kirby J, [147], [148 & 192]; Paskandy v Paskandy, [57]; A v A, [103 & 104] cf. M v S and “virtual visitation”[93]).
In determining a relocation case that involves changed parenting arrangements, a court must evaluate each of the proposals advanced by the parties, without necessarily being bound by them. (A v A, [65]; U v U, Gummow & Callinan JJ, [70 & 89]; Hayne J, [171 & 172]; Bolitho v Cohen, [83-85]). Put another way, without embarking upon “some roving inquiry”, and subject to the evidence led – and affording procedural fairness to all – a court will not necessarily be constrained solely by the proposals of the parties in determining what is in the best interests of the child. (U v U, Hayne J, [172]; Bolitho v Cohen, [84]; Powell v Ptolemy, [40]).
In addition to the above, it is essential to note the cautionary and critical observation of Gummow and Callinan JJ in U v U [92] which, in many respects, underlies the principles enunciated above:
The reality is that maternity and paternity always have an impact upon the wishes and mobility of parents: obligations both legal and moral, the latter sometimes lasting a lifetime, restrictive of personal choice and movement have been incurred.
Many factors can impact upon considerations relevant to the question of relocation.
Common-sense would seem to indicate that child specific factors would include a consideration as to:
a)whether prior to a proposed relocation there had been or was in existence a shared or equal time arrangement; or
b)whether they had been a fragile or tenuous attachment to the non-relocating parent.

Similarly, common-sense would also indicate that parent specific factors that may result in a child being worse off following a relocation would include:
a)whether the relocating parent was somewhat “idealistic” in their outlook about what would be gained from the new location and may lack the resources or ability to turn the vision into a reality;
b)whether the relocating parent lacks established supports in the proposed new location;
c)whether the relocating parent has mental health or substance abuse issues;
d)whether the relocating parent has overestimated the capacity to fund any planned contact visits for the children with the other parent;
e)whether there was a history of the relocating parent being reluctant or disrupt in allowing the child to spend time with the non-relocating parent; and
f)whether there was a history of extensive or significant interpersonal conflict between the parents.
On the other hand factors that may result in a child being better off or at the very least not worse off following a relocation could be when the relocation offers mentally healthy, competent and committed custodial parents improved occupational, educational or marital opportunities where the children are more likely to benefit from that parents enhanced psychological well-being particularly if they are able to maintain meaningful relationships with involved and competent non-moving parents through regular contact.
The matters referred to above fall to be considered in the usual way in the context of determining the children’s best interests having regard to the statutory pathway provided in the legislation.
As the Full Court preferred in Collu & Rinaldo [2010] FamCAFC 53 as the Court turns to look at the best interests considerations set out in section 60CC it should firstly consider the additional considerations:

The Additional Considerations

Any views expressed by the child and any factors (such as the child's maturity or level of understanding) that the court thinks are relevant to the weight it should give to the child's views

The children’s views have been referred to above in a consideration of the evidence before the Court. It is not surprising that the child [X], having thought about living in Melbourne, says he would like to stay in Sydney. However this child’s circumstances are particular to him and general considerations as to his long-term welfare would render it difficult to give any significant weight to his expressed views.
The younger child [Y] was uncomfortable about talking about the topic of Melbourne. Clearly she likes to be with both of her parents and would like to stay at her father’s more often provided he does not watch too much football on TV. The child’s level of maturity and the much broader issues as to long-term parenting arrangements once again would see the court give little weight to the child views.

The nature of the relationship of the child with:

each of the child's parents; and
other persons (including any grandparent or other relative of the child);

It is clear from the evidence that the mother presents in the children’s present circumstances as the primary carer with the father having a significant role in the children’s lives.
Both parents have been inextricably involved in the difficulties presented by the child [X]. However, on a closer analysis it appears that the father’s relationship with the children has been somewhat superficial in that he has not until recently afforded himself the opportunity of overnight time with the children, only more recently extending the children’s overnight time with him in his parents home.
It is clear from the evidence that he seems more focused on his charitable organisation to the detriment of his relationship with the children.
It is also clear that his proposals for his time with the children, if the mother should remain in Sydney, see the children having a lower priority in his life than his business activities. It further seems to be a limitation on his relationship with the children that his ability to have overnight time with the children depends upon him remaining living in his parents home and their wishes in terms of the children’s overnight time in their household.

The father’s relationship with the children, to the Court, appears subservient to his relationship with his parents and the need for their care and his need to maintain his connections in relation to the area where he has grown up.
He has given little thought to neither the mother’s financial needs nor indeed the needs of the children in a household with their mother that has little in terms of financial resources.
It is the Court’s view that the father lacks significantly reflective capacity in relation to the needs of the children and their mother and has little empathy for their present circumstances.
A consideration of this factor favours the mother’s proposal.

The extent to which each of the child's parents has taken, or failed to take, the opportunity:

to participate in making decisions about major long-term issues in relation to the child; and
to spend time with the child; and
to communicate with the child

The Court’s findings in relation to the factual considerations relating to this factor are set out above. There is no doubt that both parents in their own way have taken the opportunities relevant to this consideration.
However, as observed above the father’s involvement in spending time with the children and communicating with them has been subservient to other considerations in his life including his business interests, the needs of his parents and his own needs.
A consideration of this factor favours the mother’s proposal.

The extent to which each of the child's parents has fulfilled, or failed to fulfil, the parent's obligations to maintain the child

The mother has since final separation been the primary provider for the children.
She has sought from the father at various times a greater financial commitment from him to assist her with proper housing and the day-to-day support of the children.
He has failed to respond to requests in that he has placed his own priorities in relation to his business interests ahead of the opportunity to obtain appropriate remunerative employment that would have assisted the mother in remaining in Sydney.

The likely effect of any changes in the child's circumstances, including the likely effect on the child of any separation from:

either of his or her parents; or
any other child, or other person (including any grandparent or other relative of the child), with whom he or she has been living

This is a significant factor in the context of this matter. The eldest child [X] presents with particular difficulties.
The father’s position is that things should remain as they are with the mother struggling financially to support the children and the children attending school approximate to where he resides, in circumstances where he steadfastly refuses to consider a move, even in the event that the mother needs to relocate within the Sydney basin for financial reasons.
The mother has made appropriate enquiries in relation to the proposed accommodation with her mother, made appropriate enquiries in relation to the suitability of the school proposed by her for the children and has within her proposed household her brother, who would appears has had significant experience in dealing with children with special needs.
The family consultant’s oral evidence in relation to this issue is referred to above.
Ultimately and notwithstanding the recommendations in the family report, it is the Court’s view that the consultant was ultimately ambivalent in relation to whether the mother should be permitted to relocate or not. As the family consultant quite correctly indicated there was probably other evidence before the Court that was not before her that would facilitate the Court being in a better position to consider the final outcome.
Overall it is the Court’s view that the evidence is indicative of a circumstance that if there was to be a relocation it should be at an early date to facilitate a resettling, particularly in relation to the child [X].
Certainly the family consultant’s orally expressed views were not inconsistent with the prospect of relocation. It is in the context of the family consultant’s oral evidence and the further oral evidence before the Court from the parties’ that brings the Court to the conclusion that it is open to the Court to make a determination different to the recommendations in the family report.

The practical difficulty and expense of a child spending time with and communicating with a parent and whether that difficulty or expense will substantially affect the child's right to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis

The financial consideration is as they relate to both parties had been referred to above in some detail. Clearly the prospect of interstate travel for the purposes of time with the children is not contemplated by the father.
However his financial circumstances are to a great extent a matter of his own doing and within his own control.
It is open to him to put his children ahead of his altruistic business ambitions and obtain employment that would see him more than capable of not only school holiday time with the children, should they reside in Melbourne, but also with the assistance of the mother time during school terms.
The mother’s financial position in Melbourne would improve in that she would not be paying rent. With the prospect of part-time employment in the foreseeable future and ultimately meaningful remunerative employment even on a part-time basis once she finishes her tertiary qualifications she will have the capacity to assist with travel costs facilitating the children’s time with the father.

The capacity of:

each of the child's parents; and
any other person (including any grandparent or other relative of the child);

to provide for the needs of the child, including emotional and intellectual needs

There can be no criticism of the mother in relation to this consideration.
It is to the parties’ credit that following final separation they have been able to work cooperatively with the interests of the children as the primary consideration.
The Court has some reservations as referred to above in relation to the father’s priorities that see the children to some extent subservient to his own priorities.
His demonstrated reluctance to spend significant time with the children historically is of concern to the Court, in that the children have spent time with him, provided that time fitted in with firstly his own business interests and of course the wishes of his parents in relation to the children spending over night time.
It is the Court’s view that should the mother remain in Sydney the father’s priorities will not change and, to the detriment of the welfare of the mother and the children, he will continue to follow a path that will see him earn little income and be able to make only an almost insignificant contribution to the overall needs of these children.
Such a circumstance can only be regarded adversely in terms of his capacity to provide for the children in the context of this factor.

The maturity, sex, lifestyle and background (including lifestyle, culture and traditions) of the child and of either of the child's parents, and any other characteristics of the child that the court thinks are relevant;

The ages of the children had been referred to above as has the particular needs that impact on a day-to-day basis in relation to the child [X].
This child need for consistency in educational and parenting arrangements is all too apparent.
However such needs must be seen in the overall context of and the myriad other factors that impact upon the court’s determination.

If the child is an Aboriginal child or a Torres Strait Islander child:

the child's right to enjoy his or her Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander culture (including the right to enjoy that culture with other people who share that culture); and
the likely impact any proposed parenting order under this Part will have on that right

This is not a factor of any relevance.

The attitude to the child, and to the responsibilities of parenthood, demonstrated by each of the child's parents

Many of the matters touching upon this factor had been referred to above.
The mother expresses significant concern as to her ability to appropriately provide for the children while locked into the closer Sydney metropolitan area. She expresses the position that should she not be able to relocate to Melbourne, that she will need in any event to move her residence and the children’s school to an area where she has some opportunity of affording appropriate accommodation and thus freeing up other monies to provide for the day-to-day needs of herself and the children.
Her concerns reflect an appropriate attitude to the children and her responsibilities as a parent.
On the other hand, the father’s reluctance to place the priorities of his children over and above his own priorities demonstrates a less than satisfactory attitude to the children and his responsibilities of parenthood.
It is all well and good to be engaged in the area of autism support and education within the community but such activity cannot be seen to be undertaken to the detriment of your relationship with your own child that suffers from such a disability.

Any family violence involving the child or a member of the child's family;

This is not a relevant factor.

If a family violence order applies, or has applied, to the child or a member of the child's family--any relevant inferences that can be drawn from the order, taking into account the following:

the nature of the order;
the circumstances in which the order was made;
any evidence admitted in proceedings for the order;
any findings made by the court in, or in proceedings for, the order;
any other relevant matter

This is not a relevant factor.

Whether it would be preferable to make the order that would be least likely to lead to the institution of further proceedings in relation to the child

The Court is mindful of its obligations to endeavour to finally resolve parenting issues between the parties.
Should the mother’s application for relocation be refused in the context of the present proceedings there is always the prospect that the father’s prioritising may well see the mother forced to make a further application in the future should the financial position further deteriorate or not improve.

Any other fact or circumstance that the court thinks is relevant.

There is no other fact or circumstance that the Court thinks is relevant.

The Primary Considerations: section 60CC(2)

The primary considerations are:
(a) The benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of the child's parents; and
(b) The need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence.
In applying the considerations set out in this subsection the Court is to give greater weight to the consideration set out in paragraph (b).

Section 60CC(2)(a) – “meaningful” relationship

In Mazorski v Albright[2007] FamCA 520; Brown J considered ordinary definitions of the term “meaningful” and observed:
[26] What these definitions convey is that “meaningful”, when used in the context of “meaningful relationship”, is synonymous with “significant” which, in turn, is generally used as a synonym for “important” or “of consequence”. I proceed on the basis that when considering the primary considerations and the application of the object and principles, a meaningful relationship or a meaningful involvement is one which is important, significant and valuable to the child. It is a qualitative adjective, not a strictly quantitive one. Quantitive concepts may be addressed as part of the process of considering the consequences of the application of the presumption of equally shared parental responsibility and the requirement for time with children to be, where possible and in their best interests, substantial and significant.
In McCall & Clark [2009] FamCAFC 92 the Full Court at 83,476 accepted as appropriate this interpretation by Brown J of “meaningful relationship”.
At the moment, the mother’s relationship with the children is clouded by significant issues as to her financial circumstances that impact upon appropriate accommodation arrangements and an ability to provide proper and adequate support for the children. The mother has had little assistance from the father notwithstanding the time that has passed since physical separation.
It is the mother’s desire to return to reside in Melbourne where, clearly, she has a close and supportive family. She has appropriate accommodation available to her and it appears appropriate schooling arrangements available for the children.
To see her remaining Sydney would see this over clouding continue and see her placed in a circumstance of ongoing uncertainty and emotional fragility that can only impact adversely upon her parenting capacity and perhaps her relationship with the children.
This would not lead to a relationship between the mother and the children that could be regarded as significant and valuable to the children. As the Court observed above:
It was conceded by the family consultant that continuing the mother’s levels of stress in the present circumstances could lead to her being unable to fulfil per parenting and community roles and that such a circumstance particularly as it might impact on the mothers mental health would have a significant negative effect on the children’s well-being.
On the other hand, should the mother be able to relocate to Melbourne with the children she gives evidence that she will gain significant emotional assistance from her family and be in much better financial circumstances where she can continue her studies without the ongoing financial stresses that are presented to her in Sydney, not the least of which is the father professed incapacity to provide any further significant support for the mother and the children.
Whilst the father has had a significant relationship with the children it appears that such relationship has been on terms that it fitted in with his own personal priorities particularly in relation to his business interests and the needs of his parents.
Outwardly, the father seems an engaged and involved parent. However on closer examination of the nature of his time with his children, particularly as he fits that time around his other business commitments and engages the children in those business activities rather than appropriate and significant one-on-one time with his children, leads to the conclusion that in reality his relationship with the children is superficial and subservient to his own priorities.
The father has had midweek time with the children after-school on a regular basis, as he says, that has facilitated the mother working. His limited overnight time has provided to the mother little respite from the ongoing demands of the eldest child of [X] and the impact of those demands on the youngest child.
To some extent the Court regards the father’s relationship with the children as one of convenience. It was clear in the context of the family report interviews that the father needed to consider a far more significant involvement with the children and a far greater commitment to financial support to assist the mother.
Clearly, on the father’s oral evidence, that is not going to happen should the mother remain in Sydney as he seeks.
There is little doubt that the children’s wishes referred to above derive from the fact that they perceive a need to become more fully engaged with the father, a need that he is unable to fulfil.
His oral evidence left the Court with the overall perception that he was egocentric and demonstrated little empathy for the circumstances of the mother and the children.
In this factor strongly favours the mother’s proposal.

Section 60CC(2)(b) – need to protect

The second primary consideration is the need to protect the children from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence.
There are no overt issues in the context of this consideration.
However, the Court is conscious of the underlying concerns that the parental fragility of the mother should she be unable to relocate to Melbourne may adversely impact upon her parenting capacity and thus expose the children to the risk of psychological harm or neglect.
The family consultant observed that the mother’s distress from being away from our own family was entirely understandable and that the stressors on the mother primarily related to her feelings of emotional isolation, lack of social support and financial hardship. The consultant acknowledged that the mother might feel anxious and fatigued as is common among parents of children with autism.
In that circumstance the consultant noted it was imperative that the mother is supported to have regular contact with her family members in Melbourne whilst having time to pursue her own adult interests and friendships outside of her work and parenting roles.
Having regard to the father’s oral evidence the father’s suggestion to the family consultant that he might assist the mother by having more overnight time on alternate weekends and providing her with more financial assistance was somewhat ingenuous.
The father presents with some emotional fragility having sought psychological support for depression and stress during 2012.
A consideration of this factor also favours the mother’s proposal.

The Presumption and Section 65DAA

All parties agree that there should be an order for equal shared parental responsibility and the Court proposes to make such an order.
By reason of the proposed order for equal shared parental responsibility, the Court is required to address the provisions of section 65DAA that provides for a consideration of the children spending equal time with the parents. If the Court finds that it is not in the children’s best interests or reasonably practicable, then the Court must consider the children spending substantial and significant time with the parents.
Neither party seeks an equal time arrangement.
Should the mother remain in the Sydney area, the children on the proposals of either party would remain in the primary care of the mother and spend significant time with the father. On the father's proposal he seeks, apart from overnight time on alternate weekends, day contact only with the children. Perhaps reflective of his priorities referred to above, he does not seek block periods with the children during school holidays in circumstances where such periods would be of significant assistance in his relationship with the children and he being able to engage with them on a meaningful basis.
Thus, on the father's application, he does not seek orders for time with the children that would equate with substantial and significant time.
Following a consideration of the various factors relevant to the children's best interests referred to above, the Court is not satisfied that if the mother was to remain in Sydney, orders facilitating substantial and significant time with the father would be in the children's best interests as the evidence is indicative of the father not availing himself of that time.
In the event that the mother relocates the residence of the children to Melbourne, then clearly equal time is not practicable and in terms of the mother's application is not sought by her. Further, orders that provide for the children to have substantial and significant time with the father would in all the circumstances be impractical.
The father puts no alternative proposal for his time with the children should the mother be permitted to relocate to Melbourne. Somewhat ingenuously he suggested that should the mother relocate to Melbourne the children could live with him.
However, the mother's proposal is in the Court’s view, restrictive of the father’s time with the children during school term and in all the circumstances the Court is satisfied that orders affording the children greater time with the father during school term are appropriate, in the children's best interests and able to be implemented by the parties.

The Court in its final determination, is comforted by the fact that the parties have to date had a cooperative relationship. Whilst the interpersonal relationship may have some difficulties they have been able to prioritise the needs of the children insofar as the parties relate to each other.
Overall, the Court is satisfied that it is in the best interests of the children that the mother be permitted to relocate the residence of the children to the Greater Melbourne area.
The Court is further satisfied that the parties from their respective financial resources will be able to facilitate the children having appropriate time with the father either in Sydney or at the father’s election in Melbourne should he wish to do so.
The children will have block periods of time with the father during school holidays and during those block periods he will need to prioritise the children over and above his business and his parents.
The Court can see no reason why the children should not be able to spend weekend time with the father, albeit at a reduced regularity during school term with such weekend focusing on available long weekends to further extend those periods with the father.
There is also no barrier to the father spending time with the children in Melbourne outside weekends and school holidays in the event he is able to spend time in that city and thus time with the children in circumstances where he may engage with their school and other activities.
The Court further wishes to acknowledge the assistance given to the Court during the course of the trial by counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer.
The orders proposed by the Independent Children’s Lawyer on behalf of the children are consistent with orders that the Court proposes to make.
The Court will make orders accordingly.

I certify that the preceding two hundred and sixty-two (262) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Foster

Associate:

Date: 30 May 2013