Edgar & Strofield

This appeal concerns the parenting arrangements for children of separated parents. The mother, who had been the primary carer of the children, relocated 88 kilometres away from the father. This case was heard by the Family Court of Australia, which was tasked with determining the legal issues arising from this relocation and its impact on the interim parenting orders. The court had to decide whether the trial judge erred in placing undue emphasis on the issue of relocation in determining the interim parenting orders, and whether it was appropriate to grant leave for the mother to adduce further evidence on appeal. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether it was appropriate to grant each party costs certificates pursuant to the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth).

The court found that the trial judge had erred in determining the interim orders by placing undue emphasis on the issue of relocation. The court also found that the mother's decision to relocate was not unilateral, as she had moved for employment and family health reasons. The mother had a primary attachment to the children, and they had relationships with their step-brother and maternal grandmother. The findings recorded in the Reasons for Judgment in the stay application demonstrated an error of the trial judge in determining the interim orders. The appeal was allowed, and the orders made by Judge Coker on 25 November 2015 were set aside. The court then made new orders regarding the shared parental responsibility and living arrangements for the children.

The court dismissed the application to adduce further evidence, finding that the evidence did not satisfy the criteria set out in CDJ v VAJ (1998) 197 CLR 172. Finally, the court granted each party costs certificates pursuant to the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth), as it was appropriate to do so. This meant that the Attorney-General would be authorised to pay the costs incurred by each party in relation to the appeal.