George & Dixon
[2022] FedCFamC2F 1647
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
(DIVISION 2)
George & Dixon [2022] FedCFamC2F 1647
File number(s): MLC 15607 of 2021 Judgment of: JUDGE HARLAND Date of judgment: 1 December 2022 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – parenting – mother seeks to relocate with 7 year old child to Adelaide where she has support of extended family – father opposes relocation his extended family support is in Melbourne – both parents highly involved parents and child focussed – finely balanced Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), Part VII, ss 60CA, 60CC(2), 60CC(3), 61DA(1), 65DAA(1), 65DAA(1)(b), 65DAA(3) Cases cited: AMS & AIF (1999) 24 Fam LR 756
KB & TC (2005) FLC 93-224
Mazorski & Albright (2007) 37 Fam LR 518
McCall & Clark (2009) FLC 93-405
MRR v GR [2010] 240 CLR 461
Taylor & Barker (2007) 37 Fam LR 461
U v U (2002) 211 CLR 238; (2002) FLC 93-112
Waterford & Waterford [2013] FamCA 33
Division: Division 2 Family Law Number of paragraphs: 102 Date of hearing: 10, 11 & 14 November 2022 Place: Melbourne Counsel for the Applicant: Ms Colla Solicitor for the Applicant: Nicholes Family Lawyers Counsel for the Respondent: Ms Fisken Solicitor for the Respondent: Barry Nilsson Lawyers ORDERS
MLC 15607 of 2021 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: MS GEORGE
Applicant
AND: MR DIXON
Respondent
order made by:
JUDGE HARLAND
DATE OF ORDER:
1 December 2022
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The child X born in 2015 will live with each of the parties during school terms as follows:
(a)with the father from the conclusion of school each:
(i)alternate Monday (or 3:30pm if X is not at school that day) until the conclusion of school on Tuesday (or 3:30pm if X is not at school that day);
(ii)alternate Friday (or 3:30pm if X is not at school that day) until the conclusion of school on Tuesday (or 3:30pm if X is not at school that day);
(iii)at other times as agreed.
(b)with the mother at all other times.
THE COURT ORDERS BY CONSENT THAT:
2.The mother and father will have equal shared parental responsibility with respect to all decisions about major long-term issues in relation to X.
3.The father spend time with X from the conclusion of school (or 3.30pm if she does not attend school that day) on 9 December 2022, until 4.00pm on 18 December 2022.
4.The mother then spend time with X from 4.00pm on 18 December 2022, until 4.00pm on 30 December 2022.
5.The father then spend time with X from 4.00pm on 30 December 2022, until 4.00pm on 9 January 2023;
6.The mother then spend time with X from 4.00pm on 9 January 2023, until 4.00pm on 25 January 2023; and
7.The father then spend time with X from 25 January 2023, until 29 January 2023.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym George & Dixon has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE HARLAND:
X’s mother yearns to relocate to Adelaide with X where her mother, sister and extended family live. X is 7 years old and currently lives in a shared care arrangement with her parents in Melbourne, spending five nights a fortnight with her father. The father opposes the mother’s relocation application. His extended family and his fiancé’s family are in Melbourne. If it were not for this issue they would not be in Court. This is a finely balanced case which makes it exquisitely difficult.
Dr B, the expert psychologist in this matter observes to the parents’ great credit that their relationship is “one of the most functional co-parenting relationships” he has seen in 20 years of working with complex families. He aptly refers to relocation cases as vexing. Strikingly, he referred to both parents as pleasant people and their daughter X as being a delightful little girl. I agree with his observations.
X’s parents have been able to co-parent to a high standard despite the differences between them. It is rare to see parents in this Court be able to do this so well. This is all the more so given that the father candidly admitted in cross-examination that during their relationship he lied to the mother and betrayed their family. The mother refers to the trauma she experienced with the breakdown of the relationship. Despite the difficult circumstances and the strengths of her feelings, she has been able to compartmentalise her feelings towards him as her ex-partner and his role as X’s father. The parties have been engaging Mr C periodically since 2017 to assist them when they have been unable to agree on parenting decisions for X. They agreed on a graduated progression of the father’s time. Both parents were readily able to talk about the other’s strength as a parent. When being cross-examined the mother said spontaneously that she gave the father credit for finding Mr C who both parties have great confidence in. In cross-examination the father spontaneously gave the mother credit for finding D School which both parents value as being a good school for X. I find that both parents were genuine in this.
The parents even attended Mr C and successfully negotiated the time arrangements for the upcoming 2022 long summer holiday arrangements both in the event the relocation is allowed and is not allowed. At the time of the trial the parents had not yet agreed on the school X would attend if she lives in Adelaide, but had arranged an appointment with Mr C to discuss this issue in December 2022.
It is readily apparent that both are actively involved parents and are keen for X to achieve her best and feel the love and support of both her parents and extended family on both sides. This does not make the decision in this case any easier. Inevitably one of X’s parents will be devastated by the outcome and will need support and time to deal with it and adjust. I am absolutely confident that the parents will be proactive about seeking assistance if needed, including sourcing assistance for X, should she need it. It would be naïve to think that there would be no impact on their parenting capacity certainly in the short term but it is also clear that they will do whatever they can to continue to be the best parents they can be to X. I also have the impression that both parents acutely understand the difficulty the other faces with respect to this decision.
Background
The parties separated when X was 15 months old. Since January 2021, X spends 5 nights a fortnight with her father during school terms from 3.30pm Friday until school drop-off the following Tuesday in one week, and overnight Monday from 3.30pm until school drop-off Tuesday morning.
The mother has been living in Melbourne since 2001. This is well before her relationship with the father. Parts of that she has spent living in other cities after moving away from South Australia. There was also a period where her sister was also living in Melbourne. Her sister is married and has two children aged 11 and nine. She and her family returned to Adelaide in 2014.
The mother has wanted to relocate since January 2017 when the parties separated. X was only 15 months old. She did not pursue a relocation application at that time having received advice. She had informal discussions with the father which included her proposing that all three of them relocate to Adelaide. She filed her application to relocate on 15 November 2021.
In March 2022, the father moved away from Suburb E, the suburb where the mother lives, to Suburb F with his fiancé. His extended family are in Melbourne and he is happy and settled in his work as a legal professional at a firm and anticipates having partnership discussions with his employer at the end of the year.
The parents agree that the longest period X has been away from her father is 14 or 15 nights when the father had to quarantine in Brisbane due to the Covid-19 isolation requirements and between 8 to 10 nights away from her mother.
What are the parties’ proposals?
The only issue I am asked to determine is whether or not the mother should be able to relocate to Adelaide with X. The parties agree that if X is not permitted to move then the current parenting arrangements will remain in place.
If the mother is permitted to relocate, she proposes that during school terms X travel to Melbourne for one weekend a month and that the father travel to Adelaide one weekend a month. The father also agreed that he would aim to book the same accommodation each time. Effectively, this would enable X to see her father fortnightly.
The father said if he is able to arrange to arrive earlier and stay later he will. I accept his evidence that this will not always be possible as it will depend on court and client commitments. He gave evidence that he will arrange to meet X’s teacher. He also agreed that he would be able to arrange meetings electronically. It may be possible for him to collect X from school or take her to school on occasion.
The weekends in Melbourne would be somewhat truncated as X is unlikely to arrive in Melbourne before 6pm on Friday. It would then be about an hour’s drive to the father’s home in peak hour traffic. She would enjoy a full day on Saturday with her father and then would need to be back at the airport by lunchtime Sunday to fly back to Adelaide. She would be able to stay longer if it is a long weekend or a weekend with a pupil free day. The mother also proposes that the father have regular FaceTime with X and that he could do homework with her via FaceTime.
As explained by Dr B in his family report, what these measures cannot replace is the ad hoc interactions that take place between a parent and child such as dropping off and picking up from school, helping out with homework and taking them to various activities and so on.
There is a minor difference between the parties as to the holiday arrangements in the event the relocation is permitted. The mother proposes that X spend time with the father for half of the Term 1 March/April school holidays and one half of the Term 3 September/October school holidays, alternating between the first and the second week each year; for the entirety of the Term 2 June/July school holidays, and for one half of the summer school holidays alternating between the first and second half each year. If the mother’s application is successful, the father seeks the entirety of the Term 1 March/April and Term 3 September/October school holidays and for the first half of the Term 2 June/July school holidays. He also sought the first half of the summer school holidays in even years, and the second half in odd years. In closing submissions counsel for the mother said that the mother was content for the Court to determine the holiday arrangements and requested that X be returned to her care a few days before term commences so she can settle and also have time with family and friends. This is a little different to her proposed orders but there is merit in X having a few days of her holidays in Adelaide. It recognises the reality that if the mother is successful in her application, X will form connections in Adelaide and as she gets older will want to have time with her friends during the holidays as well.
The father’s case is that it is not in X’s best interests to relocate and she will lose the closeness she currently has with both her parents, where both parents are heavily involved in her day to day parenting. He understands and has empathy for the mother’s desire to relocate to Adelaide to be with her family. He recognises that he enjoys that benefit of living close to his family and that the mother wishes for the same closeness with her family for herself and X.
Why the mother seeks to relocate?
I accept that the mother yearns to be with her family. She feels it deeply and describes it poignantly in her affidavit referring to “the lump in her throat each day”. Her case is described most strongly when her counsel compares the parents’ situations stating the father is living in the city he wants to live in with the support of his extended family nearby. He has repartnered and is engaged to be married. He is happy in his employment and anticipates having partnership discussions with his employers later this year. He has been able to self-determine these things. For the mother there is a sense of a lack of empowerment and agency as she is living in a city she does not want to live in, separated from her family.
The mother says that in the event the relocation is allowed the father will still have those pillars in his life. In contrast if her relocation is not allowed the situation will remain unbalanced because the mother will not feel supported and will feel that her sense of self-determination and agency has been denied. It is this difference that powerfully captures the essence of her case. If it was a consideration of the best interests of the parties then there is no doubt it is in the mother’s best interests to go. This in no way suggests that her decision is based only on her interests and not X’s. To some extent their interests are intertwined as is often the case between parents and children. Some of the benefits to X are obvious. X will benefit from the trickle-down effect of her mother being a happier parent, supported by family, and not feeling isolated and alone. The mother wants X to be able to experience a more immersive relationship with her grandmother, aunt, uncle and cousins. Dr B noted in his family report that the mother would benefit enormously from living closer to her family. I certainly accept that and that the mother would have the benefit of their ad hoc involvement of her extended family in her life. The mother fears that in Melbourne she is not being the best version of herself as a parent.
The mother changed employment a few months ago. She is employed by an Adelaide company and works remotely. She says her employer is a single mother who understands her situation and offers her more flexible working arrangements and has also secured a promotion. The mother says she will retain that employment regardless of the relocation. Her counsel emphasised on several occasions that she works alone remotely and that if permitted to move, she will be able to spend time in the office with colleagues. The mother’s material does not address the fact that she has had several jobs in the professional services area and does not indicate whether or not those jobs have been remote, office-based or a hybrid. The mother says that if she is permitted to relocate, she will be able to make arrangements with her work so that she can volunteer at X’s school and also talks about being able to go into the office and mix with colleagues. If she remains in Melbourne, there is no reason why she could not make those same arrangements with her employer, enabling her to volunteer at school should she wish to. Her home in Suburb E is close to the school.
I accept that the mother will not relocate without X although that will be very difficult for her. I also accept that it is not practicable for the father to relocate to Adelaide. Covid and the extensive lockdowns in Melbourne have only made the sense of distance and isolation from her family more acute for the mother. That is not to suggest in any way that those experiences prompted the application. I accept she wanted to relocate long before then and this is not a whim for her. The mother claims that just after separation in January 2017 the father agreed to her and X relocating but then changed his mind. She then decided not to pursue relocating at that time due to X’s age. She received legal advice at the time.
In her affidavit, the mother is negative about the father and his family, describing the father as a liar and says that initially his family was supportive of her but that changed. She claims the father repeatedly told her that his family hates her. My impression from reading her affidavit was that the mother was keen to portray the father in a negative light, which can raise concerns about a parent’s willingness to facilitate the child’s relationship with the other parent. Despite this, she acknowledged his strengths as a father and acknowledged that they have a very good co-parenting relationship despite her feelings arising out of the relationship and his distrust of him. Having seen the mother give evidence I am not concerned about her ability to facilitate X’s relationship with the father.
The mother’s mental health
The mother told Dr B about the difficulties she and X experienced, particularly during the Covid lockdowns in Melbourne in 2021. The mother said that her own mental health started to decline as she felt increasingly isolated and alone without family support in Melbourne and continued until at least a crescendo in August 2021.
The mother suffered a mental health crisis in August 2021. She was depressed and felt overwhelmed. She asked the father to take X. The father urged her to get help and also contacted her sister expressing his concern about her. The mother obtained professional assistance. She took Lexapro for a period which she found helpful. She no longer takes Lexapro but continues to see her psychologist. It is understandable that the mother did not call her psychologist with whom she has a therapeutic relationship to give evidence. She could have obtained a psychological or psychiatric assessment but did not do so.
The mother said she had no mental health issues prior to August 2021. She told Dr B and also mentioned in her affidavit that her psychologist told her that she did not have “funny thinking” or poor coping skills, but rather had just hit a wall and needed some techniques to assist.
The mother’s counsel described the mother as fragile to Dr B. I think that somewhat underestimates the mother. Dr B did not outright confirm he agreed with the statement, but said that the “whole process appeared to be quite harrowing for her”. He further said that she was trying to do what she thought was the right thing for her and X, but that she was torn about the process as she knew it would mean a change in X’s relationship with her father. Ultimately the difficulty is that in one instance it is the mother remaining separated from her family and the other is X being separated from one of her parents. The propositions are quite different.
In cross-examination, Dr B agreed that the mother would benefit from the move and have a sense of self determination and empowerment and that that would have a trickle-down effect and benefits later on. He also agreed with the proposition that many parents are depressed and overwhelmed and there is a visibility to that regardless of how hard they tried to cover it. Children of X’s age are perceptive and pick up on tone, affirmation and demeanour acutely and X would have been aware of her mother’s psychological state especially in 2021. Dr B agreed and also noted that the mother is a significantly well resourced parent and has managed that well.
When the mother was unwell with depression it would have been more difficult for her to be emotionally present and engaged with X. The mother says that during this time the father did some things that were supportive but some that were not. She complained that when she told the father that she was dying of loneliness he said “you have given me the keys to X forever”. The father strenuously denies saying that. When the father’s counsel suggested that the mother is lying about that she said “it was burnt into her brain.” I do not believe that the father made that comment. It is just too incongruous with his other behaviour around that time. The mother may have misheard him. She was highly distressed at the time.
The father collected X at the mother’s request and had her in his care for a few days. He returned X to the mother’s care when she asked and did not seek to take advantage and keep X in his care. The mother also agreed that he was supportive of the mother taking X to Adelaide with her for a visit at that time so she could have family support. Unfortunately, due to the lockdown that trip was unable to take place. Instead, the maternal grandmother made arrangements with her employer and travelled to Melbourne and stayed with the mother and X for six months. The mother had the experience and the benefit of having her mother available for practical and emotional support in same city and X also benefited from having that experience.
Dr B observed that the mother was able to continue to be child focused and attentive during her major depressive episode. She asked for help and the father provided it. There is no suggestion that the mother’s depression rendered her unfit to care for X and he also noted that the father should be given credit for not seeking to leverage that issue for strategic advantage. The mother is also to be given credit for being open about her experiences and being proactive in seeking health. As Dr B observed when cross-examined, these parents are well resourced and I am confident that the parents will continue to proactively seek assistance when appropriate and they will continue to focus on X’s best interests and parenting together for X’s benefit.
The father does not accept the mother’s depiction of herself as being isolated without close friends. Both parties spent some time on this issue in cross-examination. The issue of friendship is something that varies from person to person. Close friendship is not necessarily defined by how often you see them. You may live close to a friend but not see them for weeks at a time. This can be the product of busy schedules. Some friendships are deep and lifelong and sustain themselves regardless of distance. Other friendships are shallow and fleeting and there are many in-between.
It is not necessary for me to recite the material in the parties’ affidavits and the cross-examination of the parties on this issue as ultimately it is a matter that is deeply personal. Clearly the mother has some friends in Melbourne but I also accept that the issue here is that the mother feels that her friendships are lacking. Her focus with respect to moving to Adelaide is being with her family and being happy. She does not suggest that she will make friends more easily in Adelaide, rather her point is that her friendships in Melbourne are not enough to sustain her and do not diminish her longing to return to Adelaide.
The co-parenting relationship
Dr B aptly described the parties’ co-parenting relationship at paragraphs 36 and 27 of his family report:
The coparenting relationship between the parties can best be described as exemplary. These are two loving, invested, and dedicated parents, who have worked extremely hard to ensure that their separation has not impacted adversely on their daughter. They communicate readily and respectfully. They attend events together conjointly. They facilitate changeover of the child in a direct way, and not via some third party in a neutral location. They have assisted one another where required, shown flexibility, and spoken in a positive way about the other party directly to the child. In almost 20 years of working with families in complex family law matters, this is one of the most functional coparenting relationships that I have ever seen.
As noted above, [Ms George] and [Mr Dixon] have always demonstrated civil and respectful interactions in the presence of their daughter. [X] herself perceives her mother and father as a united front. Although the parties do not always agree, they have never allowed any points of divergence to burden their child. [X] does not feel a divided sense of loyalties. There are not messages of restraint within either household. She does not feel the need to inhibit conversation about her life with one parent, out of fear of offending or betraying the other. She is a girl who has been raised without the pernicious influence of ambient conflict, distrust, and ill will - truly a credit to these parents.
Dr B said further at paragraph 41:
Notwithstanding the strong relationship that [X] has with her mother and father, it is evident that there are slightly different approaches to the care and upbringing within each household. [X] perceives her mother as more nurturing and understanding, particularly when she is unwell. She may even taken advantage of her mother’s cautiousness and solicitude, as no doubt all children do from time to time, potentially feigning illness when she is unmotivated to attend school. With her father, there are myriad of activities, outings and events, which [X] relishes in. She does appear mindful that her father will be inclined to scrutinise any claims of being unwell, and will certainly not indulge her when she does have a day off school citing illness.
The parents clearly have different parenting styles and X has talked about those differences. Probably the most difficult area for them to navigate is addressing attention seeking behaviour and different responses to instances where X says she feels unwell and does not want to go to school. The father thinks the mother unintentionally validates the latter in those instances. The father also said that he felt the mother was unable to separate X’s interests from her own given the strength of her desire to be with family and Adelaide. The father told Dr B that reading the mother’s affidavit it appeared to be that the mother suggests that X would benefit from relocating due to anxiety, and stated that she is well settled here and has lots of friends and supports in Melbourne and that really what the mother wants is access to her support system in Adelaide.
The mother says there have been periods where she has not been able to rely on the father consistently because of his work and family commitments, and there was a period where he was quite erratic. In her trial affidavit she describes “a period of 9 months” where the father was “so unreliable” that she had to organise an au pair to ensure X was able to be taken to day care and to take care of X when the father was supposed to. She said the father was often late or cancelled due to being unwell or work commitments, and changed arrangement “with such frequency and little notice” that it was impacting on her own work and she began to get client complaints. The mother does not say when this nine month period took place. She does not provide any detail or context. At paragraph 41 she refers to both parents extending grace to the other when they have last minute changes to parenting arrangements due to work or other commitments.
In the family report, the father acknowledged there being some hiccups in the parties’ coparenting relationship from time to time but thought that up until August 2021 the five-nine arrangement was very good to excellent. He feels it has deteriorated somewhat since August 2021 and is hopeful that their coparenting relationship will improve once court proceedings are over.
Exhibit 5 provides a good example of the father providing practical support to the mother. It is not entirely clear from the exhibit when this exchange took place but looking at the other messages in that exhibit it likely took place in 2020. One day the mother sent a text at 2.36pm asking if the father could take X from 4pm to 5.30pm that day as she had a meeting. He replied at 2.41pm saying yes and also told her that when she has a chance to think about what she needs and he can work around her. The mother asked the father if he could take X the following week keeping X in his care until noon on Tuesday, and then on Wednesday and Thursday afternoon from 1pm to 5pm. The mother complained that the father was late returning X as she was worried in the context of the pandemic.
The mother’s requests involve a fair amount of back and forth for the father whilst juggling his work commitments as well, including changes at short notice. It is significant that it is the mother who initiated these requests. Clearly she was comfortable and confident in seeking this assistance.
Up until March 2022, the father lived in Suburb E close to the mother’s home and X’s school. In March 2022 he moved to Suburb F with his fiancé. His family live in Suburb G. The father has continued to support the mother and X despite moving further away from the Suburb E area. For example, Exhibit 7 is a series of text messages in May 2022 when the mother and X had Covid. In the text messages, the father tells the mother he has organised his week to take personal leave and look after X for the week if the mother was unable to. He also left craft supplies on her porch for her and X to do on Mother’s Day, which fell during that week they were in Covid isolation.
The mother conceded that the father has been supportive of her travelling regularly to Adelaide with X and in December 2021 he went so far as to track down some rapid antigen tests (RAT) for the mother and X so they could travel to Adelaide. At that time the South Australian government required travellers to provide negative RAT tests in order to be accepted into the state. At that time the tests were scarce and the demand were high as many family were keen to travel interstate to spend time with family, particularly given that it was not possible to celebrate Christmas with interstate family in the previous year due to lockdowns and border closures.
The father provides significant practical support to the mother when requested. This has not been isolated and predates these proceedings. If living in Adelaide she would not only have the practical support but also the emotional support she craves from her family. That ad hoc emotional support that cannot be replicated by Facebook and telephone is what the mother misses keenly. When the father’s counsel suggested to the mother that the same would also hold true for X in the event she lived in Adelaide with her mother, the mother said that she did not see it as the same and did not agree that X would suffer the same degree of loss of the separation from her father and his family. She then said that apart from the relationship with her father, they are different relationships. The mother's position throughout has been to suggest that the relationship with the father’s extended family is not as close and she bases this on how often X mentions she sees them. That is not a reliable measure. The father disputes this. He says that X visits her paternal grandparents, aunt and uncle and cousins regularly. It is not only about how regularly X sees them but the ad hoc nature of the interactions and the ability for families to attend special occasions as they arise.
At times the mother has used professional assistance in the form of babysitters. She says the current babysitter she uses from time to time is going to Country H for a couple of months and may not be available upon her return. The mother would be able to find an alternative if necessary and could also use before and after school care if required if she remains in Melbourne. I accept that if she relocates to Adelaide she will be able to call on family members instead which is her preference.
It is clear from the text exchanges in evidence that the father has offered significant practical supports to the mother. She has not always availed herself of these offers. I accept the mother’s evidence that she does not feel comfortable with the father coming over and looking after X in her home as he has offered to do and that the assistance her family can provide extended beyond the practical to the emotional, which is something the father cannot give her.
The mother’s comparison with her potential life in Adelaide
In her trial affidavit the mother sets out diary entries for the week of 13-19 June 2022, where she writes what it is like for her in Melbourne and what it would be like if she were in Adelaide. She says the purpose of this exercise was to compare a typical week in Melbourne to what she anticipates a typical week in Adelaide would look like. She conceded that the week she chose was a week when X was sick but said she just chose a typical week. In cross-examination the father’s counsel pointed out that what she left out was the support she receives from the father in Melbourne. This is significant given the evidence shows that the father is regularly on hand to provide practical support. Exhibit 6 is of the text exchanges between the parties which took place over that week. In the exchanges, the father offers to buy the same thermometer as the mother for accurate readings, and asks the mother to let him know if he can help in any way at all.
The table the mother prepared really shows the strength of her desire for a move. The failure to refer to the practical assistance the father provided that week is an important omission from her diary. The mother conceded in cross-examination that the message she sent the father on the Tuesday of that week where that she had a lighter work day was inconsistent with her descriptions in her table.
The mother’s table shows a somewhat romanticised view of what it will be like in Adelaide and her descriptions of life in Melbourne are somewhat coloured by her longing to move and is not an accurate factual account.
X’s difficulties at changeovers and school
The mother says that for a time last year in 2021 X was reluctant to go to school and complained about not having friends and being unhappy. The mother told Dr B about X having a lot of time off school as she was unwell, but also refusing to go and being extremely anxious. The mother says it has greatly improved since the beginning of this year. The father did not agree with the mother’s characterisation of X, although in his interview with Dr B he acknowledged that the rolling lockdowns in Melbourne had created a lot of confusion and uncertainty for children and parents.
It is not surprising that X experienced those difficulties last year as she commenced her first year of school in Melbourne during a period of multiple sustained lockdowns. She had only been attending school for a few weeks when there was a period of lock down and remote learning. Those lengthy lockdown periods were challenging for children and adults alike, but all the more so for children in those important periods of transition such as commencing school, which can be already challenging for some children without the added complications of lockdowns and remote learning and worst of all the uncertainty.
It was also a very challenging period for the parents as they had to continue working but also supervise remote learning, noting that X was at an age where she would need more active supervision than an older child. That first year of school is also an important year for the development of social relationships and that was also significantly disrupted. It is also possible that the mother projected her own feelings of anxiety and stress onto X unintentionally.
Dr B expressed the view that it is highly possible that X was more irritable and defiant and potentially reactive at points during the lockdown periods as homeschooling was challenging. He also noted it is possible that X was struggling emotionally at that time and it is also possible that she was picking up on the mother’s feelings of stress and that she presented differently when with her father. Irrespective of what may have been the case, it is clear in his view that X is a “buoyant, engageable, intelligent, and self-aware little girl. I have not formed the opinion that she is currently emotionally compromised, morose, hopeless, isolated, or unhappy.” He does not think X needs any professional intervention, and that any behaviour or emotional anomaly that the mother may have observed would likely to have been situational rather than being a broader pattern of pathology.
The mother agreed that transitions have been difficult for X at times. She further agreed that it has been less so since the current 9/5 arrangement has been in place.
X has flown frequently visiting Adelaide with her mother five or six times a year. The mother’s proposal is that X fly as an unaccompanied minor, although she will fly with X until she is comfortable flying on her own. The father does not object to the mother’s proposal but thinks it may take a while for X to become comfortable travelling alone. I have no doubt that the mother or the maternal grandmother would accompany X whilst X needed her to.
What is clear from the mother’s evidence is that it was difficult for her to envisage the potential for X to experience difficulties in transitioning and travelling to Melbourne to see her father. My impression is that it is very difficult for her to think about because she wants the relocation so much as it is also difficult for the father to think about the relocation. This was apparent when he was cross-examined about considering potential schools in Adelaide.
The mother also disagreed with the suggestion that as X gets older she is likely to have more friendships and connections in Adelaide and may be reluctant to travel to Melbourne each month. However, this type of behaviour is typical for older children and is developmentally normal as they seek to individuate. The mother said that when X has been reluctant to transition between parents previously they have been able to work really effectively together to overcome it. Both parents were also clear in their evidence that they, not X, will make the decisions for X, although of course they will listen to her. The parents have demonstrated a capacity to be able to work together to overcome such challenges previously and I am confident that they will continue to do so in the future regardless of the outcome of these proceedings.
X’s relationship with her parents and her views
Dr B made the following conclusion in his report regarding X’s relationship with her parents:
Having now consulted with the parents and [X], it is obvious that this child enjoys a positive, immersive, and reciprocal relationship with both her mother and father. [X] adores both of her parents. They have both been involved in her care and upbringing to the maximum percent possible. There is no evidence of compromised attachment, anxiety, wariness, or lack of familiarity. Given the entirely close connection that this child enjoys with each of her parents, there is no reason that she should not spend significant time with both of them. The fact that she is reluctant to leave each of their care, despite how settled she is with the other, is entirely age appropriate, and shows the warm bond she experiences with both [Ms George] and [Mr Dixon]. I would particularly commend [Mr Dixon] in having established such a secure attachment with this child, given some of the obstacles that have ensued by him not being the residential parent for the early years of her life. He has clearly made a considerable effort, becoming a consistent and dependable care figure for [X], allowing her now to live with each parent to whatever extent is possible.
It is to both parents’ enormous credit that X thought her parents were on good terms and did not describe either parent as denigrating the other or trying to influence her and Dr B’s view is that X was “not overly burdened by the reality of the parents living in separate households.” Despite the difficulties that the parents have experienced from time to time, they have been able to protect X psychologically such that she is not burdened with the adult issues.
X was able to accurately describe the current parenting arrangements and the difference in parenting style between her parents. She referred to the time she spends with each parent and that sometimes she starts missing the other parent more generally. The current parenting arrangements during school terms and school holidays was working well for her.
X spoke about regularly going to Adelaide and spoke about the mother wanting to be there but it is not possible as she lived in Melbourne. Dr B asked X if she would like to live in Adelaide. He said X was unambiguous and said “we’ve cleared that conversation and it’s been a NO. We’re not having that conversation again. I hope… I would miss dad and I wouldn’t be able to see my school friends.”
Dr B observed X to be very intelligent with impressive expressive language and vocabulary. Importantly he did not think she had been coached or influenced on what to say at the interview and says “I was not left with the impression of an emotionally vulnerable, highly anxious, or developmentally compromised child”. Dr B decided not to conduct observations between X and her parents as there was no issue that X is strongly bonded to both her parents and to prevent X from being further involved in the process.
After spending the Halloween weekend with her father recently, X complained to her mother about wanting more time with her father. When the father raised this with the mother, the mother said that the context of what X said was that at Halloween there were a lot of people around and what she wanted was more one on one time with her father and the paternal family. Rather than seeking equal time, the father accepts that X has subsequently said she enjoyed the current arrangements. He does not seek to change it. In cross examination, the father’s counsel outlined what the weekend visits would look like if the relocation was permitted and suggested to Dr B that short visits with only one clear day with the father would be hard for X given issues she has had with transitions as recently as July 2021 and October 2022. Dr B suggested that it was hard to form a concrete conclusion as children can struggle with transitions. It could have been a phase for X. There could have been a range of things going on for her at the time.
X’s views were very strong. X loves spending time in Adelaide with the mother and her maternal extended family but does not want to relocate there as she would miss her father too much and also did not want to move school and be away from friends. Dr B noted that despite expressing strong views limited weight should be placed on them given her age and maturity. X is just seven years old and at her age and stage of development, children tend to focus on short-term outcomes rather than long-term ones and do not always have an understanding or ability to picture what things look like long term. They also tend to focus on notions of fairness.
Expert Evidence
The mother presented as friendly and engageable at the family report interview. Dr B noted that the mother’s narrative was cogent and internally consistent and at times she was tearful, which is consistent with her presentation in Court before me. The mother spoke about her long standing desire to relocate to Adelaide and spoke of the difficulties she and X had experienced in 2021, and her mental health issues. The mother also emphasised that X would have the benefit of the maternal grandmother living with them during the week which would mean she would have more frequent interactions with the maternal family than she currently had with the paternal family.
Dr B acknowledges that the mother’s proposal for X to spend time with the father if living in Adelaide effectively provides for fortnightly time. Nonetheless at paragraph 50 he refers to the impact on X’s relationship with the father as profound as the father would not be regularly involved in her extracurricular activities, homework, playdates, and her wider social network. He predicts that as X gets older she may play weekend sports and want to spend time with friends and the weekend trips may become more disruptive for her. Of course it is also possible that this won’t occur. However what is likely is that “[t]heir time together would take on a more cursory, superficial, and artificial dimension.”
The mother’s counsel challenged Dr B’s use of the word “profound” in paragraph 50 of his report. He maintained that the word was appropriate in context and said having worked on hundreds of relocation cases he had seen various parenting arrangements which provided for more time during school holidays and regular visits for the parent who did not move, but the reality was that the nature of the interactions between the parent and child fundamentally changes and in this case the father has been a significantly involved parent. If he had been less involved there would be stronger indicators favouring the move.
Dr B did not agree with the mother’s characterisation of X as an unsociable child without community connections and the mother conceded as much at trial. X would adjust to the change of living in Adelaide. Dr B concluded that ultimately the benefits to X of the relocation are outweighed by the detriments. This is because X has been raised with the active input of both parents. Both parents are in comfortable economic positions on good incomes. The mother has lived in Melbourne for many years.
In cross examination, the mother put to Dr B that if the father could accommodate Friday afternoon school pick up and a Monday morning drop off in Adelaide, it would benefit X and would be in her best interests. Dr B agreed that if that were possible it would be a better outcome than if he could not accommodate school pick-up and drop-offs, but he maintained that it would be significantly different to the arrangements X currently enjoys, as the father would not be able to be regularly involved in all the day-to-day mundane aspects of parenting that occur on an ad hoc basis. Dr B accepted that it is inevitable that a relocation case involves a change to the time arrangements. He said it is inevitable that one parent’s role is diminished and in this case both parents are lovely people who have done a fantastic job with X and he believes that the relocation would be detrimental for X. He accepted that the father will be able to communicate with the school remotely and have longer spend-time periods during holidays. When asked by the mother’s counsel about X’s capacity to spend a block of two weeks with her father during holidays, Dr B observed that it would be an extended period of spend-time for X, but that X is close to both parents and is a robust little girl. There may be some issues with transitions and it may take her awhile to acclimatise but she would adjust.
The mother’s counsel also suggested that as X has had a positive school year in grade one and has made friends and that this puts her in a good position for a relocation and is a helpful springboard for her. Dr B did not entirely agree and said it could be more jarring after the two years of lock down and that X spoke to him about feeling really connected to her school friends so that whilst it may be a positive it may also not be.
What is clear in this case is that these parents are well resourced and proactive. I have no doubt that the parents would continue to work together and to ensure that in the event of relocation being allowed, visits with the father would be prioritised. Dr B accepted that the parents would ensure that X attended on those visits and that they were prioritised but that that would not exclude X from being resentful. He said one thing that is common is that as children get older and become more involved in school sports and other extra-curricular activities, they can be more resistant to the travel to see the left behind parent even though they love that parent, and will feel conflicted about it. It is understandably what naturally occurs, and what the parents would hope for X is that she would become settled in Adelaide and feel part of her local community which would include her school and friendship circles. It is entirely developmentally normal for children as they get older to want to spend less time with their parents and more time with their peers. One would have concerns for X’s psychological state if that were not case.
Dr B accepted that it would be up to the parents to be flexible and to negotiate changes. The mother’s counsel suggested to Dr B that X has coped with various changes to her father’s living arrangements pretty well and that her parents are well equipped to help her adjust to any transitions. He accepted that proposition. Dr B also said that the thrust of his concerns is not only the compromise of the father-daughter relationship but also that one dynamic that can start to unfold is that one parent’s sphere of influence with the child becomes greater simply by reason of being there more. Currently, X enjoys an immersive relationship with both her parents.
The mother’s counsel suggested to Dr B that he formed the view that the mother’s reasons for relocation were not good enough. I reject that proposition. It is well established that a parent seeking to relocate does not need to show a compelling reason for the move. Dr B said he did not form the view of X that the mother painted of X not coping at school and not being well connected. He absolutely accepted that the mother was genuine in wanting to be closer to her family and also saw various benefits to X in being closer to her family in various ways, including time with her cousins, and that the mother was not someone who had stated that she wanted to move to be further away from the father or because he has re partnered. Dr B said that the issue of parents being able to mould and shape their child is not just with respect to moral issues, but things such as a child seeing that parent prepare dinner, fold laundry come home after work and all of these things are formative. He noted that the father was one of the more involved fathers he had seen in his career and accepted that the father would still have those opportunities with X but said that there would be a difference.
There is a clinical argument that the Melbourne visits may be not long enough and be more difficult and overwhelming. It is very hard to predict how X’s distress, if she became distressed, would manifest. She may resent her mother or her father or may become morose. Children feel homesickness and it can become overwhelming. Dr B said that X impressed him as a happy, well-adjusted child, but even for adults flights can be difficult with security screens, delays for flights and so on.
Dr B also said that relocated children start to view their new residence as home, for X Melbourne will not be home anymore but a place she visits. It will not be a case of having two homes anymore as all of those ancillary things such as neighbourhood, friends and school form part of what makes a place a home.
Legal Principles
Relocation cases are not in a special category of cases. They must be determined in accordance with the same principles applicable to any parenting matter and not as a separate or isolated issue. The mother does not need to establish compelling reasons to relocate. There is no general presumption in favour or against a relocation.
The Full Court considered the issues of relocation in Taylor & Barker (2007) 37 Fam LR 461 and said at paragraphs 53 and 83:
We agree that when dealing with a case concerning the future living arrangements for a child, and involving a significant change in the geographical place where the child is to live, the preferred approach according to established principle has been not to deal with that change, or relocation, as a separate or discrete issue, but rather as just one of the proposals for the child’s future living arrangements, as least in so far as that approach is possible (see U v U (2002) 211 CLR 238; (2002) FLC 93-112 and KB & TC (2005) FLC 93-224).
However consistently with what the Full Court said in Goode, the options of the child spending “equal time” or “substantial and significant time” with each parent must now be given separate and real consideration, notwithstanding that a relocation proposal may also have to be given subsequent consideration, with the advantages and disadvantages of that proposal then being balanced against the advantages and disadvantages of an” equal time” or “substantial and significant time” arrangement. Not to approach a case involving a relocation proposal in this way, would devalue the imperative imposed by the Act to consider whether it is in the best interests of a child in a case to spend “equal time” or “substantial and significant time” with each parents.
Whilst the best interests of the child is the paramount consideration it is not the only consideration. In AMS & AIF (1999) 24 Fam LR 756 at 792 His Honour Justice Kirby said:
… …a statutory instruction to treat the welfare or best interests of the child as the paramount consideration does not oblige a court, making the decision, to ignore the legitimate interests and desires of the parents. If there is conflict between these considerations, priority must be accorded to the child’s welfare and rights. However, the latter cannot be viewed in the abstract, separate from the circumstances of the parent with whom the child resides.
Parents are not obliged to remain living close together after separation. An individual’s freedom of movement is an important right recognised in the Constitution. His Honour Justice Kirby refers to this in AMS & AIF but also acknowledges that this right gives way to a child’s best interest if the two things conflict.
The principles therefore governing the Court’s determination in this matter are set out in Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Family Law Act”). The Court must regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration: s.60CA. What it means in individual cases is informed by a number of statutory provisions.
In deciding whether to make a particular parenting order, s.60CA requires that I must consider the matters set out in s.60CC(2), being the primary considerations, and s.60CC(3), which lists 13 additional considerations. The first primary consideration is the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both their parents and the second is the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence. There are no issues of risk in this case.
As stated in s.60B, the best interests of the child are met by ensuring they have the benefit of both their parents having a meaningful involvement in their lives to the maximum extent, consistent with their best interests. The concept of a meaningful relationship has been considered in a number of decisions including Waterford & Waterford [2013] FamCA 33, Mazorski & Albright (2007) 37 Fam LR 518 and McCall & Clark (2009) FLC 93-405.
The presumption that it is in X’s best interests that her parents exercise equal shared parental responsibility applies. X is entitled to have a meaningful relationship with both her parents. X would continue to enjoy a meaningful relationship with both her parents regardless of a relocation. A meaningful relationship is not necessarily an optimal relationship.
For a parenting order to involve the children spending substantial and significant time with a parent, s.65DAA(3) requires that it must at least provide for the children to spend time with the parent both on days falling on weekends and holidays and on days falling outside those times. It must also allow the parent to be involved in the children’s daily routine and on occasions and events that are of particular significance to the children and for the children to be involved in occasions and events that are of special significance to the parent.
In MRR v GR [2010] 240 CLR 461, the High Court found that s.65DAA(1) requires a Court to consider both whether the best interests of a child is served by an order for equal time and that it is reasonably practicable for children to spend equal time. Both elements must be present in order for a Court to make an order for equal time.
The High Court also addressed the relationship between section 65DAA(1) and section 61DA(1) at paragraph 15:
Section 65DAA(1) is concerned with the reality of the situation of the parents and the child, not whether it is desirable that there be equal time spent by the child with each parent. The presumption in s 61DA(1) is not determinative of the questions arising under s 65DAA(1). Section 65DAA(1)(b) requires a practical assessment of whether equal time parenting is feasible.
Neither parent seeks an order for X to spend equal time with her parents currently. Dr B briefly canvassed that as a possibility in the future but there is no application on foot. If X remains living in Melbourne then during school terms, she will spend five nights a fortnight with her father and will spend equal time with her parents during the school holidays period. This is the current arrangement which has been in place since January 2021. This is substantial and significant time as defined in section 65DAA(3).
It is not just about the amount of time X spends with each parent but how immersive X’s experience has been with each parent. X has benefited greatly from both her parents being so involved in all aspects of her daily care. There are numerous examples of how the parents have worked effectively together for X’s best interests, including when X was having difficulties transitioning at kinder her parents did double changeovers which worked well for her.
The time that the mother proposes X have with her father if she and X moved to Adelaide is frequent, maintaining a fortnightly regime. She also proposes additional time during school holidays period, which however will not be reasonably practical for the father having the opportunity to be involved in the day-to-day routines and activities that he is currently involved in.
Dr B described X as expressing her views very clearly that she does not want to relocate as she would miss her father. X is just seven years old, and whilst her views are clear and important as Dr B identified, it is also important to recognise that at her age X does not have the sufficient developmental maturity to have an understanding of what the long-term arrangements would look like. Therefore, I place limited weight on her views with respect to relocating. It is important to acknowledge that X enjoys a close and loving relationship with both her parents and that she also enjoys close and loving relationships with extended family members both in Melbourne and in Adelaide. She will continue to enjoy those relationships.
Conclusion
The dilemma in this case is weighing up the competing gains and losses in the parties proposals. If X and the mother relocate to Adelaide, X would benefit from her mother feeling happy and fulfilled and would benefit from her maternal grandmother being actively involved in her care each week, noting that the grandmother proposes to live with the mother and X from during weekdays. She would also benefit from greater involvement with the maternal aunt and uncle and their children in ad hoc family arrangements. Conversely, she would lose the benefits of the regular ad hoc arrangements with her extended paternal family. In either case, X would be able to maintain relationships with all of those people who are important to her and her family but they would be different.
Both parents have taken every opportunity to be actively involved in decision-making about long-term issues for X’s welfare and also taken up opportunities to spend time with and communicate with X.
Both parents financially support X pursuant to the private arrangement between them, which they review from time to time. Both parties are in receipt of high incomes. The mother was critical of the father for a period of time where his child support payments were inadvertently being paid into a bank account that she had closed, but which the bank did not properly action, resulting in a period of about 26 weeks where the mother was not receiving child support payments from the father even though the father was making them. The criticism that can be levelled at the father is his failure to respond and promptly look into this issue when the mother first raised it. However, it is clear that once it was established he paid those sums not waiting for the bank to sort out that issue. Certainly it is most unfortunate that the error was not rectified much more quickly and the mother’s frustration is understandable. However, I do not find that it has any bearing on the issues that I have to determine and I am satisfied that both parents will continue to maintain X financially.
Both parents gave evidence as to the difficulties X has experienced periodically in transitioning between her parents. Both parents have been responsive to X and have worked together to assist her. The proposed relocation would require X to make significant adjustments. Pursuant to the current arrangements, she sees both her parents each week, and in addition she experiences both parents being heavily involved in all the routine aspects of her life. She has benefited from watching both her parents work hard to provide for her and also importantly, although separated work together and flexibly for her benefit. Necessarily relocation would reduce the father’s day-to-day involvement in X’s ordinary routine and activities, and whilst I accept that on occasions the father would likely be able to collect X from school and take her to school on one of his monthly Adelaide visits, his opportunities will be substantially limited by reasonable practicality, including his work commitments. As a legal professional he will at times have commitments to his work and to clients that require him to be in Melbourne. I accept that it is not feasible for him to maintain his practice from Adelaide because there are far fewer clients in his area compared to Adelaide, as whilst it is a capital city it is a smaller city than Melbourne with a smaller legal fraternity. I accept that it is not feasible for the father to relocate to Adelaide given his work and family commitments. The father has never lived in Adelaide and does not have any connections there. The mother’s position in Melbourne is not the same. She has lived in Melbourne for many years prior to meeting the father, and whilst I accept her evidence that she does not have as many close friends as she used to in Melbourne she still has connections to Melbourne. Part of the mother’s evidence was that if she moves to Adelaide she would be able to volunteer and be more involved at X’s school. However, given her current flexible work arrangements, and living close to the school, this is something that she could do in Melbourne as well, although I accept that it would be easier for her in Adelaide because she would have her mother there assisting her.
The mother also gave evidence about one of the benefits of moving to Adelaide is her being able to go into the office and spend time with the other employees. The mother’s counsel was keen to emphasise a picture of the mother being isolated and alone working in Melbourne. However, it is not at all clear to me as to what the mother’s previous working arrangements were prior to taking up her current position and whether or not that involved remote work quite apart from the necessity for people to adapt to remote working during the extensive lockdowns in Melbourne. Certainly there are obvious benefits to being part of an office culture and for many, they are able to enjoy flexibility of both working in the office and working at home subject to the employer’s requirements and their preferences. It would not be the same but the mother could use the time that X spends in block periods with her father to travel to Adelaide to spend time with her family and to go into the office.
X is fortunate that both of her parents earn good incomes and are able to afford frequent interstate travel. X is used to travelling to Adelaide with her mother up to 6 times a year and greatly enjoys those times with her mother and her family and also sees how happy her mother is there.
If X were to live in Adelaide she would need to adjust to not seeing her father as regularly and not on an ad hoc basis, and would also not see the father’s fiancé and his extended family as often and with them being involved in an ad hoc basis. She would also have to adjust to a change of school and being away from her friends. Whilst for a period X had some difficulties at school and has had difficulties with bullying, her parents with the school ably dealt with that issue and as is typical for children of X’s age some friendships come and go, and some others are longer lasting. There is no reason to think that X would not make friends at the new school and indeed it is the mother’s proposal for a time during the holiday that if she was allowed to move, she proposes that they be in Adelaide in January so that X can participate in the school holiday programme with her proposed school so that she is able to meet people prior to starting the school year.
Fortunately, there are no issues of family violence in this case. Ultimately, the difficulties with the mother’s proposal is that it requires X to make a lot of adjustments and she will also experience significant loss, as her relationship with her father will not involve the same spontaneity and active involvement in her regular daily routines which she is used to.
Cases like this involve an element of prediction including with respect to how well X would adjust to the arrangements including travel. Of course X is used to regular airline travel, though not on her own, and the experience with respect to the returns to Melbourne would be different for her and it would only be natural, as Dr B identified, that as X becomes immersed in her community in Adelaide, which extends beyond family as it does in Melbourne, that there may be times where she would be reluctant to travel to Melbourne to spend weekends with her father, not because she loves him any less, but simply because of other competing issues and priorities from time to time. I accept that the parents would ensure that her relationship with her father is maintained, but as Dr B noted that would not address any feelings of resentment that X might have, if indeed that was the case.
Both parents impressed me as genuine. They have empathy and understanding for the other’s position. They do not continue this case lightly. Both showed their distress at various points during the hearing. Regardless of the outcome one of the parents will be devastated and the outcome will be difficult to adjust to. As Dr B observed these parents are incredibly well resourced. They will do what they can to deal with the outcome and shield X as best they can. X is aware that her mother wants to relocate with her to Adelaide. She also knows that her father does not want X to move to Adelaide. Ultimately I must consider the impact of the competing proposals on X.
If the mother does not relocate then X’s life will continue as it has before. She will continue living in Suburb E with her mother, attending the same school with the current parenting arrangements remaining in place. X will be aware of her mother’s sadness and disappointment. There is also a risk the mother may become mentally unwell as she has previously, but as she has previously, she will be proactive in addressing it and will have the support of her family. The maternal grandmother would come and stay again if necessary.
X is fortunate enough to have two capable, dedicated and actively involved parents and is happy and settled. She is still very young and whilst certainly she would continue to have a meaningful relationship with her father if she relocated, it would not be as immersive and it would be a real loss to her.
As I indicated at the outset this is a finely balanced case. Either outcome involves loss and disappointment. I have concluded that it is not in X’s best interests to relocate to Adelaide with her mother as the loss of having both parents who are actively involved in her day to day life is too great, particularly in her pre-teen years. Whilst there would be benefits to her from her mother’s happiness and the ability to be immersed in the family life of her extended family, it would come at a considerable loss. Both parents have demonstrated an extremely high sense of responsibility with respect to the obligations as parents and also recognise the importance of the other parent’s role in X’s life and I am confident that this will continue. If X were to relocate she would still have a meaningful relationship with her father, but to a significant lesser degree given his level of involvement.
I find that on balance it is not in X’s best interests to relocate because of the loss of having both parents actively involved and immersed in her daily life.
I certify that the preceding one hundred and two (102) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Harland. Associate:
Dated: 1 December 2022
0
2
0