CCC & MJR

This matter concerns an appeal by the mother against orders made by Stevenson J on 28 October 2004, which effectively prevented her proposed relocation with the child, K, from the Hawkesbury/Blue Mountains area to the central western area of New South Wales. The child, K, was born in August 1997. The mother's appeal was based on three grounds: that the trial judge failed to provide adequate reasons, particularly regarding conclusions on alleged domestic violence; that the trial judge did not properly weigh the benefits of the proposed relocation for K; and that insufficient weight was given to the impact on K of contact concluding on Monday mornings rather than Sunday evenings, necessitating travel before school.

The legal issues before the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia were whether the trial judge erred in her reasons for judgment, her assessment of the competing proposals, and her consideration of the specific impacts of the proposed relocation on the child. Specifically, the court was asked to determine if the trial judge adequately addressed alleged incidents of domestic violence, properly weighed the advantages and disadvantages of the relocation for K, and appropriately considered the practicalities of the proposed contact arrangements, including the timing of changeovers and the travel involved.

The Full Court, comprising Faulks DCJ, Coleman and Boland JJ, reviewed the trial judge's findings and reasoning. The trial judge had treated the application as a relocation case, applying the relevant legal principles and considering the factors under s 68F(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). The trial judge made findings regarding the credibility of witnesses, including the mother, father, maternal grandparents, Ms J, and the paternal grandmother. Crucially, the trial judge expressed reservations about the mother's candour and the accuracy of the history she provided to an expert psychiatrist, Dr R. The trial judge implicitly rejected the mother's account of certain domestic violence incidents, finding that the mother had directed physical and verbal aggression towards the father, and accepted the father's version of events in a specific incident, corroborated by the paternal grandmother. The trial judge concluded that she could not be confident that contact occurring only during school holidays would be sufficient to maintain K's close relationship with her father, and that relocation would significantly reduce K's opportunities to connect with other important figures in her life.

The Full Court dismissed the mother's appeal. The court found that the trial judge had given proper reasons for her decision, adequately addressed the allegations of domestic violence, and properly weighed the competing proposals and the relevant factors under s 68F(2). The trial judge's findings of fact were open to her on the evidence, and her conclusions were not demonstrably wrong. Therefore, the orders made by Stevenson J were upheld.