Gerber & Beck

Case [2020] FamCA 210


FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GERBER & BECK [2020] FamCA 210

FAMILY LAW – INTERNATIONAL RELOCATION – both parents born in a Country A, the mother having lived in Australia for over 20 years and the father for over 10 – two children, both born in Australia, raised bilingual and observing two cultures.

FAMILY LAW – INTERNATIONAL RELOCATION – Mother’s reasons for relocation application – her alleged failing mental health and her desire to be near her family in Country A.

FAMILY LAW – EXPERT EVIDENCE – family consultant recommending against relocation now in view of youngest child’s age and the risk of damage to that child’s bond with her father if relocation order were made – other psychologist’s conclusions unsupported by a discernible path of reasoning and therefore defective in accordance with Dasreef Pty Ltd v Hawchar and Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles – application refused.

Civil Code (Country A) § 530
Commercial Code (Country A)
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), ss 128, 174, 175
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss 60B, 60CA, 60CC, 61DA, 65DAA, 65DA, 69ZT
Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act 2006 (Cth)
Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)
Trade Tax Act (Country A) § 5
Income Tax Code (Country A) § 15, 35
Abalos v Australian Postal Commission (1990) 171 CLR 167
Adams v Randall (2011) 46 Fam LR 453
Adsteam Building Industries Pty Ltd v Queensland Cement & Lime Co Ltd (No 4) [1985] 1 Qd R 127
Allied Pastoral Holdings Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1983) 1 NSWLR 1
Amador & Amador (2009) 43 Fam LR 268
AMS & AIF (1999) 199 CLR 160
Babcock & Waddell [2019] FamCAFC 129
Banks & Banks [2015] FamCAFC 36
Baron de Bode's Case (1845) 8 QB 208
Beale v Government Insurance Office of NSW (1997) 48 NSWLR 430
Blanding v Blanding (2016) 55 Fam LR 218
Bolitho v Cohen (2005) 33 Fam LR 471
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
Brunskill v Sovereign Marine & General Insurance Co Ltd (1985) 59 ALJR 842
Cape v Cape (2013) 50 Fam LR 1
Christmas v Nicol Bros Pty Ltd (1941) 41 SR (NSW) 317
Coghlan v Cumberland [1898] 1 Ch 704
Dasreef Pty Ltd v Hawchar (2011) 243 CLR 588
Dearman v Dearman (1908) 7 CLR 549
Devriesv Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472
Dublin Wicklow and Wexford Rly Co v Slattery (1878) 3 App Cas 1155
Earl Nelson v Lord Bridport [1845] 50 ER 207
Ellis v Wallsend District Hospital (1989) 17 NSWLR 553
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118
Franklin v Ubaldi Foods Pty Ltd [2005] VSCA 317
Franklyn & Franklyn [2019] FamCAFC 256
G & G [1985] FLR 894
Galea v Galea (1990) 19 NSWLR 263
Garrety v Steyn [2019] FamCAFC 124
GH v The Catholic Child Welfare Society (Diocese of Middlesbrough) [2016] EWHC 3337 (QB)
Goodridge v Beadle (2017) 57 Fam LR 425
Hendy & Penningh [2018] FamCAFC 257
Hooshmand & Ghasmezadegan (2000) FLC…

Continue reading Gerber & Beck

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Gerber & Beck [2020] FamCA 210
Case
[2020] FamCA 210
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Gerber & Beck*, the Honourable Justice Wilson of the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the mother for permission to relocate with the parties' two children, both born in Australia, to Country A. The mother, who had resided in Australia for over 20 years, cited alleged failing mental health and a desire to be near her family in Country A as reasons for the proposed move. The father, who had lived in Australia for over 10 years, opposed the relocation.

The central legal issue before the court was whether to grant the mother's application to relocate the children internationally. This required the court to assess the best interests of the children, considering all relevant factors, including the impact of relocation on their relationship with each parent and their cultural upbringing.

Justice Wilson's reasoning was significantly influenced by the expert evidence presented. A family consultant recommended against relocation at that time, highlighting the youngest child's age and the potential risk of damage to her bond with her father. The court also considered the evidence of another psychologist, finding their conclusions to be unsupported by a discernible path of reasoning, and therefore defective in accordance with the principles established in *Dasreef Pty Ltd v Hawchar* and *Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles*. Consequently, the mother's application to relocate with the children was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

The mother’s application to relocate with the children to Country A is refused.

2.

By 22 April 2020 the parties email my associates with a minute of proposed orders in relation to ongoing parenting orders.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.