FLOROS & FLOROS - [2021] FamCA 13

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

FLOROS & FLOROS

[2021] FamCA 13

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Parental Responsibility – Where the parties agree there should be equal shared parental responsibility – Where there is no reason to deviate from the agreed position – Where the mother shall have the final say in circumstances where the parties are not in agreement – Orders.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – With whom a child lives and spends time with – Relocation – Best interests of the child – Where the mother seeks to relocate with the child to B City in Country C – Where the father opposes the relocation – Where both parties have family in B City – Where the child is 13 years of age – Where the child expresses a strong desire to relocate – Where the child is currently living with the mother and spending limited time with the father during the day only – Where the child has a weak attachment to his father – Where the father seeks a continuation of the current time spending arrangements – Where the father is concerned the relocation will further distance his relationship with the child – Where the mother does not oppose the child spending time with the father in Australia or B City – Where the current quality of relationship between the father and child will not be diminished – Where the child suffers from a medical condition requiring day to day management – Where the father has had little involvement in the child’s health management and education – Where there are medical professionals in Country C who can appropriately treat the child’s condition – Where the father is concerned the child will struggle to transition into the Country C education system – Where the child’s level of proficiency in the Country C language will improve over time – Consideration of the impact of COVID-19 – Orders.

Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) ss 135, 144.
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60B, 60CA, 60CC, 69ZN, 69ZT

AMS v AIF (1999) 199 CLR 160
Starr & Duggan [2009] FamCAFC 115
Zahawi & Rayne [2016] FamCAFC 90

APPLICANT:

Mr Floros

RESPONDENT:

Ms Floros

FILE NUMBER:

DNC

459

2017

DATE DELIVERED:

22 January 2021

PLACE DELIVERED:

Adelaide

PLACE HEARD:

Adelaide

JUDGMENT OF:

Berman J

HEARING DATE:

24, 25 and 26 August 2020

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

Mr Livingstone

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Maleys Barristers & Solicitors

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Ms Farmer

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Withnalls Lawyers

Orders

That all previous parenting orders be discharged.
That the parties have equal shared parental responsibility for X born … 2007 (“the child”) with the mother to have sole parental responsibility in the event that the parties cannot come to a joint decision about a major long-term issue.
That the child live with the mother.
That the child be permitted to relocate with the mother to B City, Country C on or after 18 December 2021.
That the child spend time with…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading FLOROS & FLOROS

Details

AGLC: FLOROS & FLOROS [2021] FamCA 13
Case: [2021] FamCA 13
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Family Court of Australia considered parenting arrangements for a 13-year-old child in the matter of *Floros & Floros*. The proceedings involved the father, Mr Floros, and the mother, Ms Floros, who sought orders regarding parental responsibility, the child's residence, and a proposed relocation of the child to B City in Country C. The father opposed the relocation, while the mother sought permission for it.

The court was required to determine several key issues. These included whether to uphold the parties' agreement for equal shared parental responsibility, and if so, whether the mother should have the final say on major long-term issues. Crucially, the court had to assess the best interests of the child in relation to the mother's application to relocate with the child to Country C, considering the child's strong desire to move, his age, his existing relationship with both parents, and his medical condition. The court also had to consider the father's concerns about the impact of the relocation on his relationship with the child and the child's transition to a new education system.

In its reasoning, the court noted the parties' agreement on equal shared parental responsibility, with the mother to have the final say in cases of disagreement. Regarding the relocation, the court found that the child, being 13 years old, expressed a strong desire to move to Country C, where both parents had family. The court considered the child's limited attachment to his father and the father's minimal involvement in the child's health and education management. It was satisfied that the child's medical condition could be appropriately managed in Country C and that the relocation would not diminish the quality of the father-child relationship, as the mother did not oppose the child spending time with the father in either Australia or Country C. The court also addressed the father's concerns about the child's transition to the Country C education system, concluding that the child's language proficiency would improve over time.

The court made orders discharging previous parenting orders and establishing equal shared parental responsibility, with the mother to have the final say on major long-term issues. The child was ordered to live with the mother and be permitted to relocate with her to B City, Country C, on or after 18 December 2021. Specific arrangements were detailed for the child to spend time with the father, both before and after the relocation, including provisions for travel between Australia and Country C, and communication methods. The orders also stipulated requirements for travel notifications and the retention of the child's passport.

Orders