Fallon and Stirrat (No. 2)

This case, heard in the Family Court of Australia, concerned an application by the mother, Ms Stirrat, to relocate the parties' three children to Spain. The father, Mr Fallon, who resided in the United Kingdom, sought for the children to relocate to the UK to live with him, or alternatively, to live with the mother and spend time with him on alternate weekends. Notably, the father had not seen the children for two years prior to the proceedings.

The court was required to determine whether the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility should be rebutted, and if so, to make orders regarding the children's living arrangements and the allocation of parental responsibility. The central issue revolved around the children's best interests, particularly in the context of international relocation and the father's prolonged absence from their lives.

Justice Kent found that the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility was rebutted in the best interests of the children. The court declared that the parents would continue to have equal shared parental responsibility for decisions concerning changes to the children's living arrangements that would make it significantly more difficult for them to spend time with either parent, requiring genuine consultation and joint decision-making. However, the mother was granted sole responsibility for other major long-term issues, including the children's education, religious and cultural upbringing, health, and names, with a requirement to consult the father in writing and allow him 14 days to respond before making such decisions, unless an emergency arose.

The court ordered that the children shall live with their mother and granted her liberty to relocate their residence to M City, Spain. The Australian Federal Police were requested to remove the children's names from the airport watch list. Specific orders were made regarding the children spending time with their father, both in Australia pending relocation and subsequently in Spain and London, with detailed provisions for communication, school holidays, and special occasions. The court also outlined arrangements for the parents to bear costs associated with the children's travel.