FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – RELOCATION – Where parties reside in Coastal Town A – Where wife wishes to relocate to live in Perth with the two younger children – Where there is a 10 year age difference between the oldest child and the two younger children – Where the oldest child wishes to remain living in Coastal Town A with the father – Where the parties agree that the eldest child should be permitted to determine with whom he resides and the time he is to spend with the other parent – Potential separation of siblings – Where it is in the best interests of the younger children to remain living with the wife – Where the legitimate interests and desires of the wife, as the younger children's primary caregiver, are relevant to the children's best interests – Where it is professionally and financially advantageous for the wife to live in Perth – Where the husband asserts that he is unable to relocate to Perth – Where the Court is of the opinion that there is no reason why the husband could not relocate to Perth when the oldest child completes his secondary education – Whether the husband can have a meaningful relationship with the younger children if relocation is permitted – Relocation permitted
FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – modest asset pool – consideration of parties' contributions – consideration of s 75(2) factors
Legislation:
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), s 4(1), s 60B, s 60CA, s 60CC, s 64B, s 61D, s 61DA, s 65DAA, s 65DAC, s 65DAE, s 75(2), s 79(2), s 79(4)
[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 Fullgrabe & Fullgrabe
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Fullgrabe & Fullgrabe [2015] FCWA 9
Case
[2015] FCWA 9
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The matter of Fullgrabe & Fullgrabe was heard by the Family Court of Australia. The dispute primarily revolved around the relocation of the wife and two younger children to Perth, while the eldest child wished to remain in Coastal Town A with his father. The wife, the primary caregiver of the younger children, sought to move to Perth for professional and financial reasons, whereas the father argued against this relocation. The court had to determine whether it was in the best interests of the younger children to relocate with their mother and whether the father could maintain a meaningful relationship with them if they moved.
The primary legal issues addressed by the court included whether the relocation would be in the best interests of the younger children, considering their age difference with the eldest child and the potential separation of siblings. Additionally, the court had to consider the legitimate interests of the wife, the primary caregiver, and whether the father could realistically relocate to Perth once the eldest child completed his secondary education. The court also needed to assess the contributions of both parties to the modest asset pool and apply the relevant factors under section 75(2) of the Family Law Act.
The court found that it was in the best interests of the younger children to remain with their mother in Perth, taking into account the professional and financial advantages for the wife, as well as the practicalities of the father relocating at a later stage. The court also determined that the father could maintain a meaningful relationship with the younger children even if they were to relocate. In assessing the property settlement, the court considered the contributions of both parties to the modest asset pool and applied the relevant factors under section 75(2), resulting in a fair division of the assets.
The court ultimately permitted the relocation of the wife and the two younger children to Perth, while allowing the eldest child to remain with his father in Coastal Town A. The father was given specified visitation arrangements with the younger children. The property settlement was divided in a manner that reflected the contributions of both parties and the considerations under section 75(2).