GORMAN and GORMAN - [2010] FCWA 25

[2010] FCWA 25

JURISDICTION	:	FAMILY COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
ACT	:	FAMILY LAW ACT 1975
LOCATION	:	PERTH
CITATION	:	GORMAN and GORMAN [2010] FCWA 25
CORAM	:	CROOKS J
HEARD	:	15 & 16 JULY 2009
DELIVERED	:	16 FEBRUARY 2010
FILE NO/S	:	PT 6400 of 2008
BETWEEN	:	GORMAN
Applicant/Father
AND
GORMAN Respondent/Mother
Catchwords:
Parenting orders Relocation to Japan

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975, s 60B, s 60CC

Category: Not Reportable

[2010] FCWA 25

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant	:	Mr M Rynne
Respondent	:	Mr S Jones

Solicitors:

Applicant	:	Paterson & Dowding
Respondent	:	Mony De Kerloy

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Mazorski v Albright (2007) 37 FamLR 518
McCall & Clark [2008] FamCAFC 92
Morgan and Miles [2007] FamCA 1230
T & N [2001] FMCAfam 222

[2010] FCWA 25

1 [Mr Gorman] and [Mrs Gorman] have been unable to agree on the parenting
arrangements to be made for their son, [Kasey], aged 9 years and their daughter, [Hanna], aged 7 years. Mrs Gorman wishes to live with the children in Japan. Mr Gorman seeks that the children remain in Perth and live with the parties on an equal time basis. Mrs Gorman will not leave Australia without the children.

Brief background

2 Mrs Gorman is Japanese and was born in Japan in January 1969.
3 Mr Gorman is Australian was born in Perth in May 1973.
4 The parties met in Perth in late 1996 when Mrs Gorman was in Australia on a student visa studying English and doing a secretarial course.
5 Mr Gorman and Mrs Gorman started living together in Perth in early 1997.
6 In December 1997 the parties travelled to Japan where Mr Gorman completed
Japanese language studies. Whilst in Japan the parties lived with Mrs Gorman’s parents at Osaka.
7 Mr Gorman and Mrs Gorman were married in Japan on 19 December 1998 and

then returned to Australia on 1 January 1999 so Mr Gorman could resume his
university studies.
8 In late 1999 the parties returned to Japan where Mr Gorman was offered work

over his summer break. Mr Gorman and Mrs Gorman lived in Japan for about two
months before they returned to Perth for the start of the 2000 academic year.
9 Kasey was born in Australia in May 2000.
10 In about late 2001, Mr Gorman and Mrs Gorman returned with Kasey to Japan where they lived for a time. Hanna was born in Japan in December 2002.
11 Between early 2003 and December 2006 the parties lived either in Japan or in
Perth. There were also periods when Mr Gorman lived in Perth finishing his studies and Mrs Gorman lived in Japan with the children.
12 The parties separated in July 2005 when Mrs Gorman left the city where they were then living and moved into her parents’ home in Osaka with the children.
13 The parties disagree over whether July 2005 was the time of their final
separation.
14 Mr Gorman’s position is that…

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 GORMAN and GORMAN

Details

AGLC: GORMAN and GORMAN [2010] FCWA 25
Case: [2010] FCWA 25
Decision Date: 16 FEBRUARY 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Family Court of Australia, the matter of Gorman and Gorman involved a dispute over parenting arrangements, with a particular focus on the relocation of one parent to Japan. The court was tasked with determining whether the relocation of the father, who sought to move to Japan with the couple's child, was in the best interests of the child. The mother opposed the relocation, arguing that it would significantly disrupt the child's life and her ability to maintain a meaningful relationship with the child.

The legal issues before the court revolved around the best interests of the child as the primary consideration under section 60CC of the Family Law Act 1975. This included assessing the potential impact of the relocation on the child's relationship with both parents, the child's own views (if ascertainable), and any other relevant factors that could influence the child's welfare. The court also had to evaluate the father's proposed arrangements for maintaining contact with the child and the mother, and whether these arrangements were reasonable and practicable.

The court considered the evidence presented by both parties, including expert testimony and submissions on the potential benefits and detriments of the relocation. It found that the father's relocation to Japan would likely have a significant negative impact on the child's relationship with the mother and the stability of the child's life. The court also noted the father's ability to maintain a relationship with the child through digital communication was not sufficient to outweigh the benefits of the child remaining in Australia with the mother. Consequently, the court concluded that the relocation was not in the best interests of the child and denied the father's application to relocate.

The court made orders that the child would remain living with the mother in Australia and outlined a comprehensive parenting arrangement that included regular contact between the child and the father, facilitated by travel and digital communication. The court emphasised the importance of the child maintaining a strong and ongoing relationship with both parents and directed both parties to work cooperatively to achieve this outcome.

Orders