Carson and Pendelton

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CARSON & PENDELTON

[2014] FCCA 502

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Parenting – relocation – best interests of children.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975, ss.60B, 60CC(3), 60CA, 62G

McCall & Clark (2009) FLC 93-405
Mazorski & Albright (2007) 37 Fam LR 518

Applicant:

MR CARSON

Respondent:

MS PENDLETON

File Number:

PAC 498 of 2013

Judgment of:

Judge Stewart

Hearing date:

7 - 8 November 2013

Date of Last Submission:

8 November 2013

Delivered at:

Parramatta

Delivered on:

21 February 2014

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr Macpherson

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Bell Lawyers

Counsel for the Respondent:

Mr Morley

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Benetatos White Solicitors

ORDERS

All previous orders in relation to the children [X] born [in] 2005 and [Y] born [in] 2007 be and are hereby discharged.
The parties have equal shared parental responsibility for the children [X] born [in] 2005 and [Y] born [in] 2007 (herein after referred to as “the children”).
The children live with the mother.
The father spend time with the children as follows:
(a)During school terms each alternate weekend from after school Thursday until the commencement of school on Monday (to be extended to the commencement of school Tuesday if the Monday is a non-school day);
(b)During school terms each other alternate Thursday from after school until 7pm.
(c)For one half of all school term holidays at times to be agreed and failing agreement the first half, from after school on the last day of school until 6pm on the middle Saturday, in even years and the second half of the holidays being from 6pm on the middle Saturday until the commencement of school on the next school term in odd numbered years.
(d)For one half of the long summer holidays at times to be agreed and failing agreement the first half in years where Christmas Day falls in an even year and the second half when Christmas Day falls in an odd numbered year.
(e)In the event that Father’s Day occurs on a day when the father is not spending time with the children the father shall spend time with the children from 6pm on the Saturday before Father’s Day until 6pm on Father’s Day.
(f)In the event that any of the following occur on a day on which the father is not spending time with the children, the father shall have four hours time with the children:
(i)The father’s Birthday;
(ii)Each of the children’s Birthdays.
In the event that the parties are located within 50 kilometres of each other on Christmas Day the children shall spend time with the party with whom they are not being cared for from 12 noon on Boxing Day until 5pm on 27 December but nothing in this order shall require the parties to be within 50kms of each other on Boxing Day.
For the purpose of facilitating Order 5 hereof, by 20 December in each year the parties advise each other of where they propose to spend the following Boxing Day.
In the event that Mother’s Day occurs on a weekend when the children are spending time with the father the father’s time with the children shall be suspended as and from 6pm on the Saturday evening before Mother’s Day for that weekend.
In the event that any of the following occur during a day on which the father is spending time with the children the children shall return to the mother for four hours on:-
(a)The mother’s Birthday; and
(b)Each of the children’s Birthdays.
The father’s alternate weekend time with the children resume during school terms as follows:-
(a)In the event that the father has spent the second half of the school holidays with the children on the second Thursday following commencement of each school term; and
(b)In the event that the father has spent the first half of the school holidays with the children on the first Thursday following the commencement of each school term.
That on any occasion where the changeover to facilitate the children spending time with the father does not occur to and from school changeover shall take place by the father collecting the children from the mother’s residence at the start of the time with the children and the mother shall collect the children from the father’s place of residence at the end of his time with the children.
Each of the parties be and are hereby restrained from denigrating the other parent or any member of the other parents household in the presence of the children or within the children’s hearing and each of the parents are further restrained from allowing the children to remain in the presence of or within the children’s hearing of any other person who is denigrating the other parent or denigrating any member of the other parents household.
The father be permitted to telephone the children or communicate electronically with the children as follows:-
(a)At any time the children wish to call or electronically communicate with him, and the mother shall facilitate this call/communication; and
(b)At any other reasonable time.
The mother and father shall:-
(a)Keep the other parent informed at all times of their residential address and contact telephone number details including mobile and landline telephone numbers and email addresses;
(b)Provide the other of notice in writing within 28 days prior to any proposed change of residential address;
(c)Keep the other parent informed of the names and addresses of any treating medical or other allied health practitioner who treats the children and authorise such practitioners to provide the other parent with information that they (the applicable medical or other allied health practitioners) are lawfully able to provide about the children;
(d)Inform the other parent as soon as is practicable of any medical issues, significant health issue or significant illness or injury suffered by the children or either of them. This order authorises any treating medical practitioner to release details of the children’s medical condition and/or injury to the other parent.
The mother authorise any schools attended by the children to provide the father with information about the children’s educational progress and other related activities and supply him with copies of reports, school photograph order forms, certificates and awards obtained by the children at his own expense if he shall request the same.
During the time that the children are with either parent that parent shall:-
(a)Respect the privacy of the other parent and not question the children about the personal life of the other parent;
(b)Speak of the other parent respectfully;
(c)Not denigrate or insult the other parent or any member of the other parent’s household or immediate family in the presence or hearing of the children and use their best endeavours to ensure that other persons do not denigrate or insult the other parent or other member of the other parents household or immediate family in the presence or hearing of the children or either of them.
Each parent be at liberty to attend the children’s school which are routinely attended by parents including but not limited to parent teacher interviews, sports days and concerts.
All extant applications are dismissed and the case is removed from the pending list of cases maintained by the Court.
Upon the expiration of the Appeal period and in the event that no appeal is lodged that all exhibits then be returned to the party who tendered same and that all material produced on subpoena be returned to the person or organisation who produced same or securely destroyed.
Pursuant to section 65DA(2) of the Family Law Act 1975, the particulars of the obligations these orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these orders is set out in Attachment A and these particulars are included in these orders.

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

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT PARRAMATTA

PAC 498 of 2013

MR CARSON

Applicant

And

MS PENDLETON

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

These proceedings relate to the parenting arrangements for two children:-
a)[X] born [in] 2005 (“[X]”); and
b)[Y] born [in] 2007 (“[Y]”).
[X] is aged 8 years and [Y] 6 years of age.
The parties to the proceedings are the parents of [X] and [Y]. Mr Carson born [in] 1985 is the Applicant Father (“the Father”). Ms Pendleton born [in] 1987 is the Respondent Mother (“the Mother”).
The Father and Mother commenced living together in about June 2005 and separated in December 2011.
Prior to separation the parties lived in rented accommodation in [B].
Apart from a brief move after separation by the Father to [omitted], both parties had lived in the [B] area up until 31 January 2013 when the Mother unilaterally relocated herself and the children to [G], Southern Queensland.
Since separation both the Father and the Mother have re-partnered. Both partners, Ms M and Mr G have sworn an Affidavit in this matter.
The Applicant Father filed an Initiating Application on 8 February 2013 which was listed before a Registrar on that day.
Orders were made by the Registrar on 8 February 2013 inter alia that:
a)Service of the Initiating Application and Affidavit filed 8 February 2013 be served upon the Respondent Mother care of her Mother, her Partner and by email; and
b)That the matter be listed for Interim Hearing on 11 March 2013.
On 11 March 2013 Interim Orders were made providing for time with the Father and the proceedings were transferred to the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia (as it then was) for Interim Hearing on 10 April 2013.
On 10 April 2013 the matter proceeded to Interim Hearing before Federal Magistrate Henderson (as she then was) and Orders were made by her Honour that the Mother cause the children to be returned to [B] area no later than 20 April 2013 and to spend time with the Father:
a)From 5pm 20 April 2013 to 9am 27 April 2013;
b)Each alternate weekend from the conclusion of school Friday until the commencement of school Monday;
c)For the first half of all school holidays from after school on the last day of term to 12 noon on the second Sunday of the holidays; and
d)At other times as agreed.
On this date the matter was set down for final defended hearing for three days commencing 6 November 2013 and an order pursuant to section 62G of the Family Law Act 1975 for the preparation of a Family Report was made.
At the commencement of the hearing the issues the Court is asked to determine are:-
a)With whom the children live and spend time with;
b)Whether the children relocate with the Mother to [G] in the State of Queensland; and
c)Whether the parents are to share parental responsibility.
The material which I have been asked to consider in this case is:-
a)In the case of the Applicant Father:-
i)Initiating Application filed 8 February 2013.
ii)His Affidavit sworn and filed 1 November 2013;
iii)Affidavit of Ms M sworn and filed 1 November 2013; and
b)In the case of the Respondent Mother:-
i)Response to Initiating Application filed 11 March 2013;
ii)Her Affidavit sworn 3 October 2013 and filed 9 October 2013; and
iii)Affidavit of Mr G sworn 3 October 2013 and filed 9 October 2013.
In addition to this material I have read and considered a number of documents which were tendered as Exhibits and comprise:-
·Exhibit MA – Aide Memoire, Minute of Orders sought by the Respondent Mother;
·Exhibit F1 – Page three of the Affidavit of Mr Carson sworn 4 February 2013;
·Exhibit F2 – Aide Memoire, [omitted] Online Flight Bookings
·Exhibit F3 – Student Profile, [Y], [G] Public School, sleeve 1 Subpoena Material from The Department of Education and Training
·Exhibit M1 – COPS report [omitted] dated 30 January 2013, sleeve 4 Subpoena Material from NSW Police.

The parties’ proposals

The father’s application was framed as a residence application on the premise that the mother would not be living within reasonable proximity to [B].
Each of the parties handed the Court a joint document setting out the differences between their proposals in substance. This document was very helpful.
The mother made the concession that in the event that the children were not permitted to live in the [G] region in Queensland, she would not relocate her own residence and would remain close to the children. The differences in the parties’ proposals in the event that the children were living close to each of the parents were as follows:-
a)The mother indicated that the children should spend each alternate weekend from after school on Friday until the start of school on Monday whereas the father indicated that he thought the children should be in his care from after school Thursday until the start of school the following Tuesday (being a period of five consecutive nights) and in each other week from after school until 7pm on Monday.
b)There was little difference between the parties’ proposals with respect to school holiday periods and each of the parties agreed that there should be an equal sharing of school holidays.
c)Each of the parties agreed that there should be provision for special days and anniversaries and the parties agreed on changeovers.
In the event that the children were permitted to reside in the [G] area there was a dispute between the parties in the time the children would spend with their father.
The mother’s proposal was that the children should spend twelve days in each of the school holiday periods at the end of terms one and three and for half of the school term holiday period in the middle of the year being at the end of term two.
The father’s proposal was that in each of the school term holidays he spend twelve consecutive days with the children.
There was a minor dispute between the parties as to the Christmas period however it is agreed that the parties will enjoy Christmas with the children in each alternate year on a rotating basis.
A dispute arose between the parties with respect to whether or not the children should be able to see the parent with whom they are not living over the festive Christmas period. If there is a considerable distance between the parties that time presents significant practical difficulties. However I do consider there to be benefit to the children having some time with each of their parents if that is reasonably practical over that festive period. The Christmas period is quite different to any other time of the year and for children it takes on some significance and contributes to the meaningful way that they interact with each of their parents. In the circumstances and in relation to that dispute in my view if the parent with whom the children are not living is within reasonable proximity (and by reasonable proximity I mean by a distance of less than 50 kilometres from the party) then the parent with whom the children are not living at that time should see the children from Boxing Day from 12 noon until 5pm on 27 December 2013 of each year. Given the time of the year I will require prior notice of a parent’s proposed location over the forthcoming Christmas period. Nothing in the orders shall prohibit the parent with whom the children will be living for the first half of the long summer holidays from travelling on a holiday with the children if they so choose. I appreciate that this a cumbersome order however it is the best that I can do in the circumstances weighing all of the competing interests of both the children, the parents and of course significant others in their lives.
There was a further dispute as to the cost of transport between the parties if the children live in [G] essentially it was that the father bears all the costs of transporting the children for school holidays and the mother would bear the costs of transporting the children on the agreed proposal for a mid-term visit and for the Father’s Day weekend.
There was much that the parties agreed upon and I will incorporate those orders into the Orders made in these proceedings. In particular the parties agreed that they have equal shared parental responsibility with respect to the children.
Thus as the issues emerged during the course of the proceedings it is quite clear that the fundamental issue between the parties was where the children would be living.

THE FACTS

In preparing these reasons it is not possible to include all aspects on which I heard or on which there was evidence. I have however considered all of the evidence in the proceedings and taken all evidence into account. If I have not mentioned a particular fact or matter in these reasons it does not mean that I did not have regard to it.
In these reasons a statement of fact is a finding of fact.
The mother has been the primary carer of the children following separation in 2008. The mother was barely 18 years of age when [X] was born in 2005 and 20 when [Y] was born.
The parties commenced living together just before [X]’s birth and the father was 20 years of age when [X] was born.
The parties separated when [X] was three and [Y] was 14 months of age.
There is a dispute between the parties as to the level of care provided by each of them and in particular the father during the time the parties lived together. The father says that the mother exaggerates her own involvement in the children’s care and minimises his involvement. I accept that each of the parties views their involvement at that time from a different vantage point and perhaps to suit the arguments that they wish to advance in their case.
The mother talks of difficulties that the father had in containing his alcohol consumption and says that it was only really after a serious motor vehicle accident in 2009 that he approached his role as a father with any degree of responsibility and adherence. She suggests that it was she who ensured that the children saw their father regularly and that the father was not committed to his relationship with the children, often pursuing his own personal social commitments ahead of his desire to spend regular time with the children.
The father says that the mother has minimised her description of his role in the children’s lives and says that the parties were often able to negotiate between themselves to ensure that they had a flexible and fluid arrangement with respect to the children. He says that this flexibility extended to the wider members of their respective families and particularly his mother, the paternal grandmother. He says, and the mother agrees, that until the incidents leading up to the mother’s departure for [G] on 31 January 2013 that the mother and the paternal grandmother enjoyed a particularly good relationship. The mother said she was going to tell the paternal grandmother of her departure the day before she left because she felt the move would be supported by the paternal grandmother. She was apparently thwarted in that endeavour by the fact [X] told her grandmother that they were to depart for Queensland the following day.
What is clear is that at the time of the mother’s departure the children were enjoying very regular time with their father on an alternate weekend basis, that such time with the father was by agreement and sometimes varied to suit the parties’ own commitments. The children enjoyed a close and loving relationship not only with the father but with the father’s partner Ms M, the paternal grandmother and various members of the paternal family. There is nothing unusual in this and it was entirely appropriate. Whatever difficulties the father had with alcohol consumption and immaturity it seems that they were overcome by January 2013. For instance the father was in a relationship (and is in a relationship) with Ms M and they were expecting their first child and indeed had their first child [Z] in June 2013.

The mother and the father have essentially lived all of their lives in the [B] area. Their attachments and family are in [B] and they lived as a couple in [B] until they separated in 2008.

Criminal Assault on [X] by the Third Party

In around 2012 [X] was the victim of a serious criminal sexual assault by a male person who was then a trusted family friend.
I do not propose to particularise the abuse of [X] in these reasons. There is ample material in the affidavits in the family report to establish particulars of this assault. Suffice to say that, each of the parents and the wider family have been badly affected by this heinous act perpetrated by an adult male who was in a position of trust.
Upon discovery of the abuse, the perpetrator of the abuse was charged in relation to the offences towards [X] and others and entered a guilty plea. He was to be sentenced in November 2013. I am unaware of the sentence imposed but it was likely to be a term of imprisonment.
At the commencement of the hearing. I had raised the issue of whether any professional evidence was to be called in these proceedings regarding [X] and the mother’s emotional state. No such evidence was called.
The mother raises the after-effects on [X] and clingy behaviour by her following the assault. She describes [X] is being anxious and asking questions regularly regarding the perpetrator (“is he in jail”) and in particular that [X] expressed anxiety regarding driving past the home of the perpetrator in the [B] area (“does [omitted] still live there? Do I have to go back there?”). The father said he had not observed the behaviour.
The mother says that [X] is more likely to speak to her and open up to her in relation to the abuse.
In relation to this issue I find that the abuse [X] experienced was devastating to both parents and they both reacted appropriately and understandably in the circumstances. I find that they interacted appropriately and responsibly as parents. In the aftermath of the disclosure and I’m not prepared to find that the father should be criticised for his reaction in that regard, notwithstanding it is clear that the mother was the person who was most involved with the investigations with the police and counselling.
To the extent that the mother suggests that it would be in [X] interests to be removed from the geographical reminders of the abuse, absent any professional evidence, I am unable to form that conclusion in relation to either [X] or the mother. I am prepared to accept that all parties continue to harbour difficult feelings surrounding the incident.
There is no connection for the children or the mother to the [G] area save that she had reconnected with and commenced a romantic relationship with Mr G in late October 2012. Mr G is a person who the mother met in around mid-2011. There were loose connections between the mother through her step family to Mr G and they met during various family occasions.
The mother again met with Mr G at a family function on or around September/October 2012. That relationship evolved into a romantic relationship, with Mr G and the mother communicating by way of social media networking sites, telephone and visits with each other both in [B] and [G] area (but without the children).
Mr G is employed as a [occupation omitted]. He is 34 years old and has lived in many different locations during his adult lifetime, including for a period in [B]. His connection to the [G] area is that it is a required placement to advance his career in [omitted]. He earns $75,000 per annum and his evidence was that his net weekly income is approximately $900. It is not the ideal location and is not the place where he sees himself spending the rest of his working career.
Mr G does not have children and save for the brief period the mother and the children resided with him in [G] he has not resided full time with children.
Both the mother and Mr G indicated that ultimately it was their aim to live in either the Gold Coast or the Brisbane region and that [G] is simply the placement that Mr G is required to undertake in order to secure the ideal placement.
On the mother and Mr G’s estimate Mr G will be required to serve approximately another two years in [G] before he ought to be able to secure employment on the Gold Coast or Brisbane. It is therefore in that context that it needs to be understood that the mother’s proposal is not simply that she be permitted to live with the children in [G] but rather that she be permitted to take the children for a period of somewhere between eighteen months and two years to [G] with a view to then move again to the Gold Coast region or the Brisbane region.
The mother sought to ameliorate the obvious disruptive elements to this proposal by suggesting that she would agree to be bound to staying in the [G] area for a period extending to the conclusion of [X]’s primary school years and suggesting that upon the family’s move to the Gold Coast or Brisbane the father could not complain, because it is easier and less expensive to transport the children to and from the Gold Coast than it is to [G].
Although the mother has attempted to make her proposal more palatable, it does seem quite destabilising for the children.
As romance emerged between the mother and Mr G, the mother decided to travel with the children to [G] for a holiday in the 2012/2013 long summer holidays. She went for that holiday with the children between 26 December 2012 and 12 or 13 January 2013. The mother said in cross examination that during the holiday visit she did not form an intention to live with Mr G in [G]. She said that she did not form an intention to move to [G] during the holiday visit and that her decision to live in Queensland had been formed after 12 January 2013.
She said she had a lovely time on holiday in [G] with the children and that she was happy and relaxed.
There is no dispute in these proceedings that the mother unilaterally, and without notice to the father, removed the children from [B] area in order to pursue living arrangements in the [G] area on or around 30 January 2013, I will come to that in a moment.
It is therefore self-evident that the mother’s decision making process to undertake such a significant move for herself and the children had taken place at sometime between the 12^th or 13^th of January 2013 and around the week before 23 January 2013 a period of some ten days. The mother sought to justify the move on several grounds including a desire to have [Y] start school there and to escape unsatisfactory employment. She said in a text message to the father which I find to be correct:
I wasn’t going to go but I hate my job, I hate my whole life in [B], I’m not happy in [B], I’m not happy at work, I want to try this if it doesn’t work out then I will come back.
The father says that he said to her “But you have given up your job, you have given up your home” and he says that the mother said “yes well I’ve got all that support in [B] and it’s not a problem to come back.”
Even in terms of the initial move to [G], done so impulsively and in an ill-considered manner in January 2013, the mother herself contemplated the possibility that it may not be completely enjoyable and permanent for either herself or the children. In my view she barely considered these young children who had an ongoing and meaningful relationship with both their father and significant others in their lives.
The mother’s evidence in seeking to retrospectively rationalise and justify the decision that she now concedes was made inappropriately and with undue haste had a hollow nature to it. It was based on a romantic relationship with Mr G that had only commenced in late October 2012 and had developed over a geographical distance. What is clear is that at some stage between the 12^th of January 2013 and the 23^rd of January 2013 the mother made this enormous decision to move on the strength of a long distance relationship and a period of eight weeks on holiday in [G].
The mother failed to properly consider matters such as the children’s right to maintain relationships with the father and the paternal family, reasoning that she could make the nine hour trip to [B] monthly and thereby allow the children to see their father and presumably maintain their other significant relationships.
Further, her consideration of the move as the best option for her and the children did not extend for the consideration of what the father might have thought in the circumstances.
In summary the mother agreed that after a holiday of 17 days following the commencement of a relationship in a romantic sense some eight weeks earlier that she made a monumental decision to move the children to [G] away from friends and family both maternal and paternal.
When it was put to the mother that she may have been involved in a whirlwind romance she agreed. When put to her she may have dealt with the matter in a better way she expressed regret at the way the matter had proceeded.
Unfortunately for the mother this Court has formed the view that the mother’s true regret was that her decision to unilaterally relocate was unsuccessful and reversed by the Court.
The mother told the children that they were going to live in [G] about a week prior to the move being scheduled. As events transpired the mother did not end up telling the father she was moving at all. The day before the move the mother attended the paternal grandmother’s home. It seems she believed that she would garner some support from the paternal grandmother. The mother did this not only knowing she had not advised the father of the proposed move but also that she had deliberately and consciously decided not to tell the father about the move as she was worried that there would be conflict as a result. She said that she knew that the father’s initial reaction would be bad and she agreed that the plan was to get out of the area and then present the father with a situation that was difficult to reverse. She said that she thought that she could arrange appropriate visits between the children and the father and that she truly believed that the father would be accepting.
The mother also sought to justify her decision to move by suggesting that the father had never been overly interested in the children and had never pushed to see them. She said that she thought the father would end up seeing the children on more nights.
The paternal grandmother’s reaction to the mother moving was not supportive as the mother had expected and the paternal grandmother immediately advised the father of the imminent removal of the children from the location.
The father managed to see his solicitor on the same day and a letter was drafted and hand delivered by the father that afternoon. The mother had been caught out in her subterfuge. In the afternoon the mother was packing up her home with Mr G and she received the letter and she agreed that she knew that the father was objecting to the children’s departure.
During cross examination the mother said that Mr G had been present for a couple of days prior to the move to help with packing and chores. Mr G agreed that he and the mother had not discussed in any real way the father’s reaction to the move. In that sense Mr G is also compliant in the mother’s disregard for the rights of the children to maintain their relationship with their father and extended family.
Notwithstanding the letter and, the mother having contrived the situation she was in without reference to the father, the mother told this Court that she “had” to go at that point because, having gone so far down the road to departure, she had no other choice or option to go. This was in the face of the father’s first suspected and now confirmed objections. She said she thought the father would calm down.
Because the father was required to hand deliver the letter to the mother’s home a conflictual incident occurred in front of the children in the driveway of the mother’s home.
There are a number of things about that incident which are clear:-
a)The father arrived with his mother at the mother’s address as she was packing. The father sought to see the children. The mother and Mr G were reluctant to have the children leave the premises with the father on the basis that there was a concern that the father would not return the children. The father therefore asked whether he could see the children on the driveway to say goodbye to them and the mother went inside to get the children however, as they were about half way up the driveway Mr G told the children not to go to the father and told the father that he was not allowed to see them.
b)This in and of itself badly reflects on Mr G. It seems that he regarded himself as a protector of the children and had a right to stop the children from interacting with their father. There was then a heated verbal exchange and “tug of war” between Mr G and the father in which the paternal grandmother was also involved. It is alleged by the father that as [X] was walking to meet him that Mr G forcefully pushed the child back with his right hand to her chest almost pushing her over. Apparently [X] was holding a drink which was spilled and she became quite upset with the conflict. [X] started crying and ultimately the mother took her inside.
c)For Mr G’s and the mother’s part they deny that there was a physical assault on the child and for the purposes of these proceedings I am not prepared to find that there was a physical assault however, I do find that the incident in the driveway was extremely unpleasant, verbally volatile, occurred in front of the children and exposed the children to a high level of conflict between their parents and significant others. It may very well be that the father and paternal grandmother also contributed to the extent that their language and emotions were largely uncontained. However, what cannot be refuted is that the reason the situation was at such a high ebb in the first place was as a result of the unilateral decision that the mother had made to move the children. Whilst I cannot say that the father and/or his mother acted entirely appropriately in the circumstances I think their actions and reactions were entirely explicable given what was about to occur and given the active role that Mr G sought to take in relation to the exchange.
d)The mother determined to relocate the children’s residence to [G];
e)In making that decision she chose to deliberately conceal that fact from the father;
f)She knew that the father would have a negative reaction to the children living in [G] and therefore did not tell him;
g)She determined to make the move hoping that following upon the move the father would simply accept the situation;
h)That upon the father finding out that the mother was leaving he objected via a solicitors letter;
i)In the face of that objection the mother nevertheless moved.
In my view the mother and her actions almost ensured that there would be a scene in the driveway on that day.
In proceedings for a parenting order the Court may make such parenting order as it thinks are proper subject to Part VII, Div 5 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”).

THE LAW

I am mindful in these reasons of section 60B of the Act, which sets out the objects of Part VII, and the principles which underlie those objects. They are as follows:
(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).
Section 60CA of the Act provides:
In deciding whether or not to make a parenting order in relation to a child a court must regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration.
In this matter I am satisfied that the mother’s proposal whilst not optimal can satisfy the children’s right to have a meaningful relationship with the father. However, for other reasons I am not satisfied that it is in the best interests of the children to accede to her proposal.
Therefore and obviously I am satisfied that the father’s proposal will allow the children to have a meaningful relationship with both of their parents and is in the children’s overall best interests.
To the extent to that I have not already done so, I now turn to a consideration of the section 60CC (3) considerations.

Any views expressed by children or either of them and the weight that should be given to their views[1]

[1] Subparagraph (a) 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;

Both [X] and [Y] were interviewed by the Family Report Writer in these proceedings.
At eight years and two months [X] told the family report writer that she did not want to respond to any questions in relation to her family or her views on living arrangements. She told the family report writer that she did not want to hurt the father’s feelings. Ms. G said that [X] presented as a mature but sensitive girl.
The Family Report writer “inferred” that as a result of [X]’s statements that the child’s views were more in line with the mother’s proposals. This issue was not explored with the family report writer but in my view it would be unsafe for me to draw such an inference absent any detailed evidence regarding what feelings of her father she thought she might hurt and why. I can draw nothing from [X]’s statements except that she is aware that her parent’s differing views about where she should live and to that extent at least she has been drawn into the conflict between the adults in the proceedings.
[Y] was interviewed and said that he wanted to live with his mother and see his father every day. He said that he did not want to live with his father as he would “miss mum”. He told Ms. G that if he lived in Queensland he would miss his father and he would cry.
To the extent that the children’s wishes in these proceedings are relevant to the outcome I find that neither of them are vehemently in favour of or opposed to the move to Queensland and in the alternative staying in [B] area.
Both children seem to have positive memories of their time in Queensland and both seem to like and respond to their parent’s respective partners.
Overall I am of the view that the children’s stated views in these proceedings will have little effect on the outcome save that both options present as a viable and tenable outcome from the children’s point of view.

The nature of the children’s relationship with their parents and other persons[2]

[2]subparagraph (b) the nature of the relationship of the child with (i) each of the child’s parents and (ii) other persons (including any grandparent or other relative of the child);

It is noteworthy and appropriate that neither of the parties conducted the matter on the basis that there was anything but an appropriate and loving relationship between the children, their other parents and significant others in their lives at the present time.
Each of the children has a loving and appropriate relationship with each of their parents. Each of the children responds positively to Ms M and Mr G and to their respective grandmothers. The children have a sibling relationship with their sister [Z] which is developing.
In McCall & Clark[3] the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia noted that the Family Law Act itself does not provide a definition of the word “meaningful”. Their Honours did however note with approval the views of Brown J in the first instance decision of Mazorski v Allbright[4] where Her Honour thought that the term was “synonymous” with notions such as “significant”, “important”, “of consequence” and “valuable to the child”.
[3] (2009) FLC 93-405
[4] (2007) 37 Fam LR 518
At the present time, and in the widest sense of the word meaningful, the children have an existing meaningful relationship with both of their parents and they derive benefit from those relationships.
The children’s relationship with Ms M seems entirely appropriate, playful and loving and the children have a fondness for and ongoing relationship with their sister [Z].
The children appear to have embraced Mr G as a part of their lives and [Y] at least seems quite taken by the fact that Mr G is a [occupation omitted] (“he’s [omitted]!” Family Report page 24). Both children described Mr G as nice.
Similarly, the children have relationships with their grandmothers (both of whom attended for the interviews for the Family Report) and the unchallenged evidence of the father is that the children enjoy appropriate and meaningful relationships with their extended family members on both the paternal and maternal sides, many of whom live in or within close proximity to the [B] area.

Participation in the children’s lives[5]

[5] Subparagraph (c)(3)(c) the extent to which each of the child's parents has taken, or failed to take, the opportunity:

Until these proceedings the parties were able to negotiate terms and arrangements to facilitate the children spending time with each of their parents and others. It would seem that this occurred with at least a modicum of goodwill directed towards the other. The mother continued to maintain a good relationship with the paternal grandmother.
The mother criticises the father for failing to participate in the children’s lives to the fullest extent possible and said that immediately following the parties’ separation the father was disinterested, itinerant and only rarely asked to see the children, sometimes going for weeks without seeing them. The mother says that the father was irregular and irresponsible in paying child support and even following separation, at times that he did see the children, it was necessary for her to provide the basic necessities for the children’s care such as meals and toys. During this period the mother says that the father had a dependence on alcohol and drugs culminating in the father having a serious motor vehicle crash while under the influence of alcohol.
The mother says that following that serious crash, following which the father was hospitalised, the father had somewhat of an epiphany about his drug and alcohol use and commenced counselling. She said that they attempted a reconciliation but to no avail. She said that the father spent minimal time with the children, preferring instead to pursue his own interests.
The father denied the assertions of the mother saying that he exercised regular time with the children following separation, usually on alternate weekends and on some weekday afternoons. He says that there was flexibility surrounding the arrangements for the children and each of them would work around the needs of the other.
The father agrees that he had one mid-range and one low range drink driving conviction in 2009 which suggests that he was experiencing some difficulty with his use of alcohol.
These matters demonstrate her capacity and commitment to facilitate and encourage the relationship between the children and their father. She says that in difficult circumstances and with seeming indifference by the father towards his relationship with the children she persisted and maintained the relationship between the father and the children together with his extended family. She was able to enjoy an ongoing relationship with the extended family and attended family functions for the benefit of the children.
To the extent that there is a factual dispute in these proceedings regarding the father’s involvement with the children and the mother’s insistence that he continued to be involved with the children I prefer the evidence of the mother. The mother’s evidence in this regard is particular and detailed whereas the father generally denied the particular allegations saying in broad terms that he maintained regular time with the children by agreement with the mother, usually a weekend every fortnight and some other times.
Prior to the mother’s move to Queensland in January 2013 it is clear and I find that she willingly and readily facilitated the father’s time with the children and did so in the absence of any court orders. There seemed to be a fluidity of arrangements between not just the mother and the father but also the wider paternal family. It seems that such arrangements worked not only co-operatively but with a measure of mutual respect and goodwill.
That is not to say that the arrangements were perfect, that each of the parties did not have some lingering issues with the other and perhaps particularly that the mother did not harbour some reservations regarding the father’s involvement with the children and his capacity to put the children’s needs ahead of his own. However, whatever those issues may have been the mother promoted the father in the lives of the children and continued to do so.
It is therefore somewhat surprising that the mother acted as she did in removing the children to Queensland and the manner in which she conducted that move as is set out previously in these reasons. Her actions in that regard cause me serious concern that in terms of her relationship with Mr G. I am concerned that she is unable to separate her own personal needs and desires from an assessment of what is in the interests of [X] and [Y]. The mother seems to have promoted her relationship with Mr G and her own happiness over a considered assessment of what might be best for [X] and [Y].
The advantages that the mother sees seem to be without reference to any disadvantages for the children consequent upon any move.
In saying that I must recognise the mother’s welfare and contentment must feature in any assessment of the children’s welfare. In any case such as this, the mother’s capacity to move on with her life as a single adult with children must be given serious consideration.
Although I am very troubled by the mother’s conduct in January 2013, such conduct in and of itself cannot be elevated unduly. The real question in my mind is whether it was an error in judgment consequent upon her natural desire to pursue her relationship with Mr G or whether it is symptomatic of a tendency on the mother’s part to undervalue the children’s relationship with their father and others.
When the mother arrived in [G] and enrolled the children at school the mother’s evidence was that she provided contact details for Mr G on the official school enrolment form but failed to provide any contact details or information pertaining to the father. The mother did not consult with the father regarding the children’s school nor did she advise the father of the address at which the children were living. The mother did say that she “misunderstood” the paper work at the children’s school and therefore failed to insert the father’s details. The mother said the father had her telephone number, the inference being that those contact details were sufficient. In my view these matters evidence the mother’s propensity to downplay the role of the father in the children’s lives. When these issues were pointed out to the mother she seemed willing to rectify the problems and I accept that she was genuine in that regard. However, the wider and more concerning issue was the mother’s failure to appreciate the deficits until such time that they were pointed out to her.
I harbour lingering doubts about the mother’s capacity to fully embrace and promote the father in the children’s lives from considerable distance given that she has flagrantly disregarded his role in their lives the way she conducted herself last year. The promotion of the father and his household from a distance will require considerably more attention and commitment to the children’s relationship with their father than the mother demonstrated during that episode.
However, I do note the evidence of Ms G that on the mother’s proposal for the children to spend time with the father, namely each school holidays and a long weekend in each school term, interspersed with electronic video calls (“Skype”) that such a proposal would be sufficient for the children to maintain a relationship with their father, and others which would continue to be meaningful for them.
I also note that there is no suggestion that the mother has not abided court orders in these proceedings and although she moved in the face of objection by the father she is not a person who disregards her obligations in complying with orders of the Court.
It was put by counsel for the mother that the mother would necessarily suffer disappointment and perhaps unhappiness at being able to pursue her relationship and that detracts from the proposals of the father that the children’s care should be shared (but not equally shared) in [B] area. I accept that the mother’s desire is to pursue her relationship with Mr. G and that in her view that will involve her moving with herself and the children to wherever Mr. G is working and living from time to time. On that basis it is true that there will be naturally some disappointment if the mother fails in that pursuit. I cannot elevate that natural disappointment and perhaps unhappiness to a level that would suggest that such unhappiness would impact on the mother’s capacity to parent these children. Indeed to the contrary Ms. G observed that the mother presented as being highly resilient woman. She commented that the mother was struggling with the stresses of the Court process and everything that process entailed but overall was resilient and strong.
Absent any detailed and professional evidence regarding the mother’s ongoing state of mind and emotional state regarding the move I am unable to advance that matter any further than merely take it into account in the context of the numerous matters to be weighed in the balance in these proceedings. I do not find that this factor should be elevated above any other factor.

The likely effect of any changes in the children’s circumstances including the effect of separation from their parents, siblings and other relatives with whom the children have been living[6]

[6] Subparagraph (d) the likely effect of any changes in the child’s circumstances including the likely effect on the child of any separation from:

It would seem obvious that in the event that the relocation took place then the intimacy and regularity of the children’s relationship with their father and the paternal family would decline and may perhaps diminish. However, the nature of the relationships is such that in my view the children’s relationship with their father would continue to meaningful.
There is evidence that [Y] has not coped well with the instability in his life surrounding the move in January 2013. There is a suggestion that he has been misbehaving and dishonest at school and at extracurricular activities and that he simply did not cope. I am of the view that these issues for [Y] are difficult and his exposure to parental conflict and the competing desires of his parents and others cause difficulty for him. In my view it is likely that [Y] would experience some disruption and further instability if he was to move schools yet again however, it is likely that over time such difficulties would abate.
What would be a significant change for [Y] is that he would not see his father’s extended family as regularly as now and this would add to his burden.
In terms of [X] I am of the view that she exhibits a greater resilience than [Y] to cope with change and would likely settle at either location.
The children enjoy a great deal of incidental support in the [B] region, that support also encompasses support available to the mother. There are no such supports available to the children and the mother in the [G] region save that the mother would have the obvious assistance of Mr G.

Practical difficulties and how they affect the children’s right to maintain relationships and direct contact with their parents on a regular basis[7]

[7] Subparagraph(e) 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;

[G] is about a nine hour drive from the [B] area.
Mr G had committed to funding the cost of the children spending time with the father when he initially thought that the commitment would be in the vicinity of $3000 per annum. During cross examination it emerged that the cost of the children spending time with the father would be somewhat larger than that and possibly as high as $10,000. Mr G was not shaken in his resolve to fund that figure and I accept his evidence that he would be prepared to assist financially at a higher level if that was necessary.
Mr G has already provided some financial assistance to the mother in the sum of approximately $14,000 which the mother regards as a loan.
Mr G earns $75,000 gross per annum and has subsided rental accommodation of $50 per week. In the event that the mother and children moved to [G] he would be the primary earner in the home with additional living expenses and travel costs.
It must also be noted that for the children to exercise time on the mother’s proposal it would involve either significant time in a motor vehicle or a lengthy period of time travelling to and from airports and travelling by plane.
It is clearly easier for the children in a practical sense to exercise time with both of their parents if they live in the same area.
In these proceedings I am of the view that there are considerable but not insurmountable practical difficulties if the children were to live in the [G] region but that the practical issues with respect to time spent all but dissipate if the children remain in [B].
In terms of the travelling I have no doubt that both of the parents will responsibly deal with travel issues for the children in terms of supervision and practical requirements no matter where the children are living.
The father in his application seeks from Thursday to Tuesday and in the other week from after school until 7pm on Monday’s, that is he sought five consecutive nights. In a practical sense if the children are living in [B] that it is feasible however I note that Ms G indicated that she thought that the children’s tolerance levels, their previous history of care, their presentation and other matters that she took into account she was of the view that the children should spend four nights with the father rather than five consecutive nights.
Clearly if the children were permitted to relocate to Queensland they would not be able to exercise that level of time with the father.

The capacity of the children’s parents, grandparents and others to provide for the needs of the child[8]

[8] Subparagraph (f) the capacity of:

In my view each of the parties have the capacity to care for the children as do significant others including grandparents and relatives. There was an issue in this case about the father’s capacity to deal with the distressing psychological and emotional damage to [X] as a result of the sexual abuse she suffered at the hands of a stranger. The mother puts her case on the basis that the father has been disinterested in that aspect of [X]’s care and that the burden has fallen to her almost in its entirety. There was a further incident to the issue of a teenage relative who allegedly inappropriately touched [X]. The mother says, and I accept, the father entrusted her with the task of dealing with that issue.
On balance I am of the view that each of the parties does have the capacity to deal with the children however the mother’s capacity to deal with emotional and psychological needs of the children is superior to the father’s. This is particularly so with respect to [X] and issues surrounding her sexual abuse including but not limited to attending on counsellors and the like.
In terms of practical capacity to provide for the children’s needs the mother argued that the cost of living and in particular accommodation expenses are greater in New South Wales as compared with the cost of accommodation in [G]. I accept that. This is an advantage in her proposal over the father’s, however given her history of living in [B] region and the statement to the father that she would return if things did not work out it is difficult to see how this issue should be given significant weight although I have taken it into account. In my view the proposal by the mother should be seen for what it really is. That is, a proposal to advance the mother’s relationship with Mr G.
The relationship between the mother and Mr G has endured since October 2012 but in my view remains relatively untested both in terms of the relationship itself and the wider relationship between the mother, the children and Mr G in a step parent family environment. The irony of this of course is that those matters cannot be tested unless Mr G and the mother live together. This factor and the difficulty for the mother and Mr G’s relationship must be subservient to what in my view is the best interest of the children in maintaining their stable and supportive environment in [B] region.
The mother says that her capacity to financially provide for the children and physically provide for the children will be greatly enhanced if she is permitted to relocate with the children to [G] to live with Mr G. She says that she will be supported by Mr G in his home that there will be greater financial resources available to them as a family. She says that any employment that she undertakes is likely to be less time consuming which will afford her greater opportunity to care for the children. In my view any issues of finances when one factors in the cost of the children spending time with the father will be similar at either location. All things being equal it is admirable that the mother would seek to be available at all times before and after school for the children but the reality and the children’s experience has not been so and I do not regard this as a determinative factor.

The maturity, sex, lifestyle, background and other relevant characteristics of the children and their parents[9]

[9] Subparagraph (g) 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;

In terms of the parents I believe that each of them have a lot to offer the children as do their spouses and the familial environment.

In terms of the way the parties present today both of them present as competent and loving parents.
I take into account under this sub paragraph that each of the parties have likely experienced trauma and grief in terms of the criminal acts perpetrated against [X] and that there are issues for each of them surrounding that.

The attitude of the parents to the child and to the responsibilities of parenthood[10]

[10] Subparagraph 60CC (i) the attitude to the child, and to the responsibilities of parenthood, demonstrated by each of the child’s parents;

I have dealt with this factor in the body of these reasons.
The unilateral relocation in and of itself should not be elevated or given undue weight in these proceedings however when I weigh the mother’s actions in that regard I cannot help but think that it is demonstrative of an inherent failure to appreciate the role the father has in the children’s lives with a sufficient level of insight to truly enhance and nurture the children’s relationship from a distance. That however is not the question. The question is whether as I have discussed if it can be maintained in a meaningful way. If this were the only issue in my view the balance would fall to the mother’s proposal. However, it must also be considered in the context of the mother seeking in effect a double relocation where there is a temporary arrangement for the family to live in [G] and then move to either the Gold Coast or Brisbane. In my view that cannot be in the children’s interests and tips the balance in favour of the father’s application. However, I will note in these reasons that the mother should be able to reapply to move the children’s residence to a more permanent location upon Mr G obtaining the final transfer. By that stage the relationship between Mr G and the mother will have endured for a significantly greater time than is the case at the moment, Mr G will have had a greater experience in his role as step parent, the children will have matured somewhat, their relationship with their sibling will have strengthened, and things can progress at a slower pace. In saying this I am not for a moment suggesting to second guess the Court’s assessment of proposals in the event of this change of circumstances. Any proposal must of course be considered at that time. I am merely indicating that these proceedings sit, in my view, right in the balance and the “double” move, whilst not the overall determinant, has tipped the scales in the father’s favour.
I am aware that the mother has indicated a concern that in the event that her relationship with Mr G is required to be conducted from a geographical distance that there is a risk that it will falter. Whilst no doubt the relationship would be enhanced by being able to live in close proximity to each other I do note that Mr G and the mother were sufficiently optimistic that they had become engaged to be married and hopefully their relationship will endure the test of time. Their needs and desires must be sub-servient to the needs of the children.

Family violence factors including any family violence orders[11]

[11] Subparagraph (j) any family violence involving the child or a member of the child’s family;

Subparagraph (k) 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:

(i) the nature of the order;

(ii) the circumstances in which the order was made;

(iii) any evidence admitted in proceedings for the order;

(iv) any findings made by the court in, or in proceedings for, the order;

(v) any other relevant matter;

Although there was the incident in the driveway in my view that incident was almost wholly reactive and arising out of the particular circumstances of this case. In my view there are no further family violence issues that are relevant to the outcome of this case.

Whether there will be any further proceedings[12]

[12] Subparagraph (l) 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;

In that sense if I looked to section 60CC subparagraph (l) as to whether or not this result will mean further proceedings clearly my orders in this matter are quite likely to mean that there will be a further relocation application at some stage in the future. However, in my view it is preferable for that to occur rather than having the children relocate temporarily to [G] with the likelihood of another significant move in the future.

SUMMARY

Thus in terms of the parties’ proposals the mother says that she has been the primary carer for the children. The preponderance of the burden of caring for the children has fallen to her. That she has encouraged and promoted the children and the father’s relationship and has encouraged and promoted the children’s extended paternal family relationships as well. She wishes to maintain her role as the primary carer and says that if that must be by remaining in [B] then she will make that sacrifice for her children. That sort of concession is not unusual in a case such as this but I do not lose sight of the fact that is very much the mother’s secondary proposal. In my view that secondary proposal should not and does not detract from her primary proposal. That is that the children continue to live with her and have a less frequent but still meaningful relationship with their father.
The mother’s proposal is destabilising in that it involves a temporary move at first instance followed by a more permanent move but still at a geographically remote location to the father. Her proposal involves the children being removed from the environs and company of their entire extended family and the wider network of friends.
The mother says that she has fallen in love and wishes to be with the man that she wants to marry. She says that the relationship has now endured for a significant period of time and has endured under very difficult circumstances. While she is prepared to concede that her decision to unilaterally relocate was hasty she says that factor is no longer relevant because the relationship has endured over the intervening period. Her proposal is that the children live at a location where they have no other attachments except those that pertain to herself, Mr G and each other (save for a limited number of connections they made in the first half of 2013) but they will be going to a school which they were familiar with in 2013 so that the location is not entirely foreign to them.
She says that she will promote the relationship between the father and the children.
Contrasted to this is the father’s proposal that the children remain in the location that they have lived for their entire lives. Accepting as he does the mother’s proposal that she would not move unless the children are permitted to move with her he says that he seeks five nights out of every fortnight with the children and half school holidays. He says that the children will enjoy an intimate ongoing relationship with himself and significant others which will not be achievable if the children are living a long way away. He says that relationships and the regularity and frequency of time is necessary to maintain them. He says that I must have significant concerns about the mother and her capacity to promote the relationship taking into account the circumstances of her unilateral relocation.
This case is finely balanced. Weighing all the factors if the mother’s application had have been to relocate the children’s home to the permanent location I would feel minded to accede to her application however, as that is not her application in the circumstances, and in such a finely balanced case in my view the scales tip to the application of the father but not precisely as he puts it.
If the children are living in close proximity to both parents I note that the parties have agreed on equal shared parental responsibility.
The father does not apply for equal shared time with the children but does apply for substantial and significant time. In my view having regard to the evidence of Ms G and the historical nature of the care of the children the father should spend four nights out of fourteen with the children and I will make orders accordingly. If the father spends from Thursday to Monday with the children that will satisfy the definition of substantial and significant time and will include school days and school holiday periods.
In my view it is also appropriate that the father spends time with the children for dinner in the intervening weeks.
The mother’s proposal was that the children spend each alternate weekend with the father for three nights in my view that is unnecessarily restrictive and is not supported by the Family Report writer. It is important for these children to experience as much time in their fathers household as possible particularly if there is the prospect of a further relocation application at a later time.
In my view at this time these orders are in the best interests of the children. However, I have not discounted the mother to apply at a time when there is a proposal for a permanent relocation address and clearly that application will need to be considered at that time. Of course my view in this regard should not be regarded as a statement of any judicial finding as to what should occur at that time but rather to give the mother an opportunity to reapply at that time and have the court take into account the change of circumstances by dent of a more permanent address. I would clearly expect the parties to engage in a form of counselling and obtain a section 60I certificate prior to any such proceedings being issued.
I recognise that this is a great sacrifice for the mother and to a lesser extent Mr G however, the best interest of the children must be the paramount consideration and in my view it is in their best interest that they remain in the [B] area which is stable and secure.
In the circumstances I make the Orders set out at the beginning of these reasons.

I certify that the preceding one hundred and fifty three (153) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Stewart

Associate:

Date: 21 February 2014

(i) to participate in making decisions about major long-term issues in relation to the child; and

(ii) to spend time with the child; and

(iii) to communicate with the child;

(i) either of his or her parents; or

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

(i) each of the child’s parents; and

(ii) 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;

[2014] FCCA 502

21 February 2014

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Family Law

Legal Concepts

Appeal

Costs

Jurisdiction

Natural Justice

Procedural Fairness

Remedies