Hudson & Duncan

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Hudson & Duncan [2021] FCCA 46

File number(s): MLC 10638 of 2020

Judgment of: JUDGE BENDER

Date of judgment: 19 January 2021

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW –Parenting –Relocation – Mother’s application to relocate to Canberra with the parties’ four year old son – where Mother maintains she will relocate to Canberra regardless of what orders are made – where the Father maintains he will stay in Melbourne regardless of what orders are made –where the Father proposes that it is in the child’s best interests for the Mother to remain living in Melbourne so that the shared care arrangement for the child can continue – where the Father seeks that should the Mother move to Canberra, the child remain living in Melbourne with him –the parties agree that should the Mother move to Canberra the child should spend time with the parent he is not living with on alternate weekends, alternating between Canberra and Melbourne.
HELD – the Child remain living in Melbourne with the Father – the Child spend time with the Mother on alternate weekends, one weekend in Melbourne and the other in Canberra as well as holidays and special occasions.

Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60B(1), 60B(2), 60CA, 60CC(2), 60CC(3), 64, 65D

Cases cited: Taylor v Barker [2007] 37 Fam LR 461
MRR v GR [2010] HCA 4
Heath v Hemming(No.2) [2011] FamCA 749
Tibb v Sheean [2018] FamCAFC 142
Fawkner & Kado [2020] FCCA 1535

Number of paragraphs: 214

Date of last submission/s: 16 December 2020

Date of hearing: 14 – 16 December 2020

Place: Melbourne (via Web Conference on Microsoft Teams)

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Dixon SC

Solicitor for the Applicant: Romer Maud Family Lawyers

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Puckey SC

Solicitor for the Respondent: Taussig Cherrie Fildes
ORDERS

MLC 10638 of 2020

BETWEEN:
MS HUDSON
Applicant

AND:
MR DUNCAN
Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE BENDER

DATE OF ORDER:

19 JANUARY 2021

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The Mother and the Father have equal shared parental responsibility for the child, X born 2016 (“X”).
2.If the Mother lives in Canberra, X live with the Father in the Melbourne metropolitan area and spend time with the Mother at times to be agreed and failing agreement as follows:
(a)during kindergarten / school terms:
(i)each alternate weekend on a rotating basis as follows;
A.on the first weekend of the cycle, from the conclusion of daycare, kinder or school on Friday to 5:00pm on Sunday, with such time to be extended for up to 7 days in the event the Mother advises of her intention to spend such additional time at least 14 days in advance, and with such time to be spent in Victoria;
B.on the second weekend of the cycle, from Friday afternoon to 5:00pm Sunday, with such time to be spent in Canberra;

(ii)until X commences school, for up to one additional week (7 consecutive nights) in each three month period at times nominated by the Mother and the Mother to advise of her intention to spend such additional time at least 14 days in advance, with such time to be spent in Victoria or Canberra and X not to miss more than 20 days of kindergarten to facilitate same; and
(iii)such further and other times as agreed between the parties.

(b)commencing in 2021, during Victorian kindergarten / school holiday periods including the long summer holiday vacation as agreed between the parties and failing agreement as follows:
(i)for the first half in 2021 and each alternate year thereafter; and
(ii)for the second half in 2022 and each alternate year thereafter.

3.If both the Mother and the Father live in Melbourne, X live with both parents in the Melbourne metropolitan area as follows, unless otherwise agreed in writing:
(a)with each parent in alternate weeks, on a “week about basis”, including during school term holiday periods, with changeover to take place at the conclusion of school each Friday (or at 3.30pm if X is not attending school on Friday); and
(b)with each parent for one half of the long summer school holidays at times to be agreed and failing agreement, alternating between the first half and the second half with each parent, commencing with the Mother for the first half of the December 2021/January 2022 long summer school holidays.

4.X spend time with each parent for special occasions at times to be agreed and failing agreement, if the parents are in the same city/location on these special occasions and X would not otherwise ordinarily be in the applicable parents’ care, as follows:
(a)with the Mother from 2.00pm on (date omitted) (being X’s birthday) until 5.00pm on (date omitted) (being the Mother’s birthday);
(b)with the Father from 2.00pm on (date omitted) until 2.00pm on (date omitted) (being X’s birthday);
(c)with the Father from 2.00pm on (date omitted) until 5.00pm on (date omitted) (being the Father’s birthday);
(d)with the Mother from 5.00pm on the day preceding Mother’s Day until the commencement of daycare or school on the Monday immediately following Mother’s Day (or 9.00am if Monday is a non-daycare / non-school day);
(e)with the Father from 5.00pm on the day preceding Father’s Day until the commencement of daycare or school on the Monday immediately following Father’s Day (or 9.00am if Monday is a non-daycare / non-school day);
(f)for Christmas as agreed between the parties and failing agreement X shall spend the Christmas period with the parent he is living with pursuant to these orders.

5.For the purpose of X moving between the care of his parents, unless otherwise specified in these orders or agreed in writing:
(a)for the purpose of order (2):
(i)if X’s time is in Canberra, changeover take place:
A.at the commencement of X’s time with the Mother at Melbourne Airport, with the Mother to be responsible for X’s travel requirements; and
B.at the conclusion of X’s time with the Mother at Canberra Airport, with the Father to be responsible for X’s travel requirements.

(ii)if X’s time is not in Canberra, changeover take place to and from daycare, kindergarten and/or school where practicable and otherwise at the Father’s home;

(b)for the purpose of order (3), changeover take place to and from daycare, kindergarten and/or school where practicable and unless otherwise agreed in writing:
(i)the Mother or her agent deliver X to the Father’s home at the commencement of periods X is in his care; and
(ii)the Father or his agent deliver X to the Mother’s home at the commencement of periods X is her care.

6.Each parent provide to the other with X at changeover, those items X will require whilst in the care of the other parent and those items be returned by the other parent with X at the following changeover.
7.Each of the Mother and the Father facilitate X communicating with the other parent via telephone, FaceTime, or other electronic means, including unless otherwise agreed:
(a)each alternate day, unless impracticable in which case the parent caring for X notify the other parent by text message and arrange a time for X to communicate with the other parent the following day; and
(b)upon the reasonable request of X.

8.Each of the Father and the Mother keep one another informed at all times of their residential address, postal address, landline (if applicable) and mobile telephone numbers, preferred email address, and username for agreed online electronic communication tools, and forthwith notify the other parent of any changes to those details or proposed changes to those details.
9.Each of the Father and the Mother notify the other of plans to travel interstate with X, as soon as practicable once those plans are known and keep the other informed in respect of any changes to those plans.
10.Each of the Father and the Mother be permitted to travel overseas with X at times he is in their care respectively pursuant to these orders, on the following conditions unless otherwise agreed in writing:
(a)the parent intending to travel with X advise the other parent, in general terms, of their intended travel plans as soon as practicable once those plans are known;
(b)not less than 30 days prior to travelling overseas with X, the parent traveling with X provide the other parent with all details for his travel, including precise dates of travel and contact details for the duration of his overseas travel along with copy airline tickets and travel itinerary; and
(c)X is to be accompanied on all international flights by the father or the mother or another adult known to X and agreed upon by the parties.

11.Each of the Mother and the Father do all such acts and things as may be required to:
(a)apply for an Australian passport for X upon the request of the other, including to sign a completed application form within 14 days of being presented with that form the other parent; and
(b)thereafter ensure that X at all times has a valid Australian passport and to renew X’s passports at least six months prior to expiry.

12.The Father retain X’s passport for safekeeping.
13.In the event of X’s travel overseas with the Mother:
(a)the Father provide X’s passport to facilitate his travel pursuant to these orders at least 21 days prior to travel; and
(b)the Mother return X’s passports to the Father when X returns to his care.

14.Each of the Father and the Mother:
(a)immediately notify the other of any medical emergency, serious illness or injury experienced by X, requiring medical treatment or hospitalisation whilst he in their care respectively;
(b)forthwith notify the other of any medication prescribed for X;
(c)forthwith inform the other of any medical, dental or other health practitioner with whom X is scheduled to consult with or has consulted with, arrange for the other parent to take part in any consultations if they request to do so (in person if practicable and otherwise by phone) and authorise the other parent to make all reasonable enquiries of such practitioner(s) in respect of matters considering X’s health;
(d)forthwith provide the other with copies of any reports or records provided to them respectively by any medical, dental or other health professional attended by X; and
(e)be and are hereby authorised to provide a copy of these orders to any medical, dental or other health professional attended by X.

15.Each of the Father and the Mother be and are hereby authorised to:
(a)receive all information parents are entitled to receive including (but not limited to) notices, reports, class lists and family contact details and photographs directly from any school, kinder, daycare centre and/or provider of extra-curricular or sporting activities attended by X;
(b)attend all events parents are invited to and permitted to attend, including but not limited to, open days, concerts, parent teacher interviews, sports days and like events; and
(c)provide a copy of these orders to any school, kinder, daycare centre and/or provider of extra-curricular or sporting activities attended by X.

AND THE COURT NOTES THAT:
A.Pursuant to s.62B and s.65DA(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the particulars of the obligations these Orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these Orders are set out in the Annexure and these particulars are included in these Orders

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 under the pseudonym Hudson & Duncan is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE BENDER:
INTRODUCTION

This is the Mother’s application to relocate from Melbourne to Canberra with the parties’ four year old son X born 2016 (“X”) so that she can start what she describes as her “dream job” in February 2021 and move in with her new partner, Mr A who lives and works in Canberra.
The Father would prefer the Mother to remain in Melbourne so that the shared care arrangement the parties’ have had in place for X since their separation in October 2019 can continue.
It is the Mother’s position that if X is not allowed to relocate to Canberra with her, she will still move to Canberra.
In that circumstance, the Father is seeking that X remain living with him in Melbourne.
Like many relocation cases, this is a very difficult matter as it involves two very capable and loving parents who are raising their son beautifully and with whom X is closely bonded. Because the parents will no longer live proximate to each other, there will be a significant impact on X’s relationship with the parent he does not live with, albeit these parents will do everything within their power to be as involved in X’s life as possible and ensure the other parent’s relationship is supported.
The Mother put forward very detailed proposals for the orders sought by her. Given her proposals are very lengthy they will not be set out in this judgment. However, to illustrate the various possibilities the Mother included, her proposals were set out under the following headings as follows (noting that Options A, B and C were predicated on the basis that X relocated to Canberra with the Mother):-
·     Option A [in the event the Father relocates to Canberra];
·     Option B [in the event the Father travels to Canberra each month];
·     Option C [in the event the Father is unwilling to travel to Canberra];
·     In the event X lives with the Father [the Mother’s non-preferred option];
·     That regardless of where X lives the following orders apply.
The Father’s primary position is for the Mother to remain living in Melbourne and for X to live week-about with each of the parties and for the parties to share special occasions.
In the Father’s Outline of Case, he sets out his secondary position in the event the Mother moves to Canberra. He proposed that X live with him in Melbourne and spend time with the Mother as follows:
(a)In Victoria on alternate weeks from Monday to Friday or for as much as that period as the Mother is in Victoria;
(b)In Canberra at the election of the Mother:-
(i)until X starts school, for a week each two months; and
(ii)upon X starting school, one weekend each school term; and
(c)Half of the term and long summer vacation.
At the conclusion of the parties’ evidence and after clarification of the parties’ proposals by Counsel, it was apparent there was some consensus between the parties on the basic structure of arrangements for X’s time with the parent he is not living with. I understand the parties to agree that X spend time with his non-resident parent as follows:-
(a)During kinder / school term, each alternate weekend, alternating between Melbourne and Canberra with the non-resident parent having the option of staying seven days with X on any weekend they travel to see him;
(b)Half school holidays;
(c)Special occasions including Mother’s Day, Father’s Day, X’s birthday and the parties’ birthdays; and
(d)Additional time whenever the non-resident parent is able to travel to where X is residing.
The parties differ in relation to the travel arrangements for X to spend time with his non-resident parent. The Father proposes the non-resident parent collect X at the commencement of his time with them and take him back with them for their weekend and holiday time and the resident parent collects X at the conclusion of that time and accompanies him home. The Mother’s proposal is the parent who X is living with both delivers and collects X when he is spending time with his non-resident parent in the city they live in.
BACKGROUND
The Mother was born 1982 and is aged 38 years. She is Healthcare professionalHealthcare professional at Employer B working four days a week (I am unclear whether the Mother is still working for Employer B at this time).
The Mother has re-partnered with Mr A who is a public servant based in Canberra. The Mother, in part, wishes to move to Canberra to be with Mr A.
The Father was born 1984 and is aged 36 years. He is a manager at Employer C which consults to organisation D. The Father has re-partnered with Ms E who is based in Melbourne.
The parties met in Darwin in October 2011. The Mother was living in Darwin at that time and the Father was visiting his parents who live there.
The parties had a long distance relationship for 12 months until October 2012 when the Mother moved to Melbourne to live with the Father who at that time was living in an apartment owned by his parents.
The Mother was initially unable to find a position in Melbourne in [her healthcare specialty] and so returned to work in general healthcare. In 2014 she obtained a full-time position with B unit Employer B.
The parties purchased the former matrimonial home at F Street, Suburb G in April 2014.
The parties married 2016. X was born 2016.
When X was born, the Mother took 14 months maternity leave and the Father continued in full-time employment.
The Paternal Grandparents travel from Darwin to Melbourne regularly to spend time with the parties and X and stay in their Melbourne apartment. The Maternal Grandparents also regularly visit the parties and X from their home in H City.
The Mother returned to work three days a week in January / February 2018. X was placed in child care for the three days the Mother was working.
Pre-COVID-19, the Father’s employment involved regular travel leaving the Mother to care for X whilst he was away. In cross-examination, the Father agreed his time away from home either for work or social reasons prior to separation was considerable.
The parties separated on 26 September 2019 shortly after the Father returned from a three week work trip to Country I. The Mother vacated the former matrimonial home on 5 October 2019.
Upon the Mother vacating the former matrimonial home the parties agreed on a 9/5 shared care arrangement whereby X lived with the Father from 4.30pm Friday to the conclusion of day-care on Wednesday, each alternate week and otherwise lived with the Mother. X attended day-care from Monday to Wednesday each week and was with the Mother Thursday and Friday when she was not working.
In December 2019 the Father commenced his relationship with Ms E. They started to largely live together from March 2020.
The Mother and Mr A were school friends at School F. They kept in contact thereafter. After the parties’ separation, the Mother and Mr A reconnected and in January 2020 they decided to see whether their relationship would develop into something more serious.
X met Mr A and his two children from a previous relationship, J who is six years and K who is four years, in October 2019. Since then X and the Mother have spent time with Mr A and his girls though this time has been somewhat restricted because of COVID-19.
In January 2020 the Mother increased her part-time work to four days a week. By agreement the parties varied X’s care arrangements to 8/6 so that X lived with the Father each alternate week from 4.30pm on Friday to the conclusion of day-care on Thursday. X was in the Mother’s care on Fridays as she was not working. X’s time in childcare was increased to four days, Monday to Thursday.
In February 2020 the Mother emailed the Father raising with him the possibility of she and X moving away from Melbourne to NSW / ACT. She indicated she was “leaning towards Canberra”.

The Father emailed the Mother in early March 2020 advising he did not agree to X leaving Melbourne.
In May 2020 the parties enrolled X in the four-year-old kinder program at Kindergarten L for 2021. X has been attending this child care centre since the Mother’s return to work.
On 1 May 2020 the parties settled financial matters and executed a financial agreement which provided inter alia for the Father to make a payment to the Mother and he retain the former matrimonial home.
On 14 May 2020 the Mother applied for a position with Employer M operating out of Canberra. On 17 May 2020 the Mother advised the Father she had applied for the position and put forward possible care arrangements for X if she were to be successful in obtaining the position and if X and the Mother relocated to Canberra.
On 18 May 2020 the Father responded to the Mother’s email again advising her that he did not consent to X leaving Melbourne.
On 12 July 2020 the Mother advised the Father she had been offered and had accepted the position with Employer M in Canberra. She agreed not to relocate with X unilaterally. The Mother was able to negotiate with Employer M not to start her new position until 2021.
After an unsuccessful mediation in September 2020 where the parties did not agree to the Mother relocating with X to Canberra and a subsequent exchange of correspondence between the parties’ solicitors in which it was confirmed the issue could not be resolved, the Mother issued an Initiating Application on 30 September 2020 seeking orders she be permitted to relocate with X to Canberra on or before 31 January 2021.
The matter came before Registrar Sudholz on 14 October 2020. It was listed for final hearing on 4 December 2020 for one day and trial directions were made including an order for an urgent family report to be prepared by Ms N.
After the filing of the parties’ trial material, it was apparent the matter would require more than one day. It was therefore relisted to 14 December 2020 for final hearing for two days.
THE EVIDENCE
The Mother
The Mother relies on her affidavits filed 30 September 2020 and 6 November 2020. She also relies on the affidavits of her mother, Ms O filed 6 November 2020 and her partner, Mr A filed 6 November 2020.
The Mother gave viva voce evidence at the final hearing. Neither Ms O nor Mr A were required for cross-examination.
It is the Mother’s evidence that she has always been X’s primary carer having taken 14 months maternity leave when he was born and only returning to part-time work thereafter.
Whilst describing the Father as being a fantastic father “when he was at home” it is the Mother’s evidence that during the relationship the Father prioritised his work and extended family / social commitments over their family unit.
Tendered into evidence was a table prepared by the Mother of the Father’s absences from home between February 2017 until November 2020. This shows the Father to have been away from home as follows:
·     In 2017: 58 days;
·     In 2018: 11 days;
·     In 2019: 44 days (43 days of this prior to separation); and
·     In 2020: 1 day.
The Father agrees with these figures.
It is the Mother’s submission that the Father’s constant travel is proof that the Father prioritised his work, extended family and social commitments over their family during their relationship. It is her evidence it was a major factor in their separation.
The Mother told the Court she will relocate to Canberra even if orders are made for X to remain living in Melbourne.
The Mother describes her new position in Canberra as her “dream job” and a “once in a lifetime” opportunity. The position is a national administration role for Employer M which is contracted to organisation D. It is the Mother’s evidence that positions in [her specialisation] outside healthcare are rare. This position will mean she will have regular hours from Monday to Friday and will not be required to work weekends or be on-call 24/7 as was required in her position as Healthcare professional within B unit at Employer B.
It is the Mother’s evidence her new positon is an opportunity for her to resume and advance her career after putting it on hold after X’s birth. She notes the Father’s evidence is that he would not relocate to Canberra if X relocates with her, in part, because his job is one he loves and is not available elsewhere. She argues she too should be afforded the same career opportunity as the Father.
It is the Mother’s evidence that upon relocating to Canberra, she and X would move in with Mr A.
As noted earlier, Mr A has two children from his previous relationship, J who is six and K who is four. In his affidavit, Mr A deposes to have an amical relationship with the girls’ mother and they have a shared care arrangement where J and K live three days with him in week one and four days in week two.
It is the Mother’s evidence she and Mr A have spoken of finding a larger home than that which Mr A currently lives in to provide more space for their combined families.
It is the Mother’s evidence she has explored childcare options for X in Canberra and has a place for him in 2021 in the event her application is successful.
The Mother acknowledges that a move to Canberra will involve considerable changes for X. It is her evidence that she believes that with the appropriate support, X will be able to manage these changes as he will be with the parent who has been the constant presence for him all his life.
It was put to the Mother that her decision to relocate to Canberra is founded on her desire to pursue her relationship with Mr A and advance her career opportunities and thus she is not putting X as her number one priority. The Mother denies this is so. It is her evidence that X is intertwined with all her decisions. She told the Court her happiness is intertwined with being able to be the stable, caring, primary carer she has always been. She says that if she is happy in her personal life and career, X will then benefit from that.
The Mother said in evidence:
“If I stay in Melbourne I don’t believe X will be better served with a mum who is miserable”.
Whilst speaking only positively of the Father’s parenting of X, it is the Mother’s belief that if X was to live in the Father’s primary care, the Father would be unable to prioritise X’s needs over his work and family commitments given he was unable to do so during their relationship.
Whilst the Father did not travel in 2020 because of COVID-19, the Mother questions the extent of the need for the Father to resume travelling for work purposes when travel restrictions are lifted. She therefore questions his ability and availability to care for X on a full-time basis noting that he has never had that responsibility.
It is the Mother’s evidence that whilst she will have to travel in her new position, it will not be at the same level the Father was required to travel in his position pre-COVID. She also anticipates that there will be flexibility in her new position and that her need to travel will be reduced because of the new ways of working that have been developed as a result of COVID-19.
The Mother tendered into evidence an email exchange between herself and her new employer dated 11 November 2020. The Mother asked as follows:-
“That the travel which was originally outlined as once a month has the potential to be less, given the new COVID normal and as other technologies available to facilitate meetings and education to reduce risk?”
The employer’s response was as follows:-
“The frequency of travel may have been reviewed following COVID – I think a lot of places are doing this! Travel will be required, however if there are ways to reduce this, you will be able to discuss this with Ms H when you start. I’m expecting that people won’t return to 2019 levels of travel in 2021, so 2021 may be a good year to introduce a way of working that is suitable to organisation D.”
In her family report dated 30 November 2020, Ms Ms N recommends X not be permitted to relocate to Canberra and he remain living with the Father in Melbourne. Ms N’s reasons for this are set out in paragraph [211] – [213] of her report which state as follows:-
“211. If weight is to be accorded to the caregiving system that each parent can provide, then on the basis of facilitating X’s optimum psychological development, the caregiving system in Melbourne is the most facilitative.
212. X has thrived in his development because he has had the presence of two competent caregivers. If X is permitted to relocate to Canberra, Mr Duncan’s caregiving will be limited and thus the risk to X’s development of such a loss is high.
213. Even though Ms Hudson considers that X has sufficient psychological resilience to adapt to the changes because she will be the consistent caregiving figure, the risk that X’s development will be compromised by the loss of the multiple layers of the caregiving system in Melbourne and of Mr Duncan’s frequent and consistent caregiving presence, should be accorded more weight “
In paragraph [180] of her report, Ms N writes:
“180. Ms Hudson presents as over-estimating X’s capacity to manage such considerable changes to his caregiving system, given that she will be the only emotionally significant resource that will be available to him in the absence of Mr Duncan’s consistent caregiving presence and the emotionally significant childcare, community and extended family psychosocial systems available to him in Melbourne.”
The Mother was cross-examined about these aspects of Ms N’s report. It is her evidence she does not believe them to be accurate and she thinks Ms N has “underestimated X”.
The Mother notes that in the Family Report, Ms N observes X to be quite a reliant child and she therefore finds some of what Ms N says to be contradictory.
The Mother’s evidence is she does not agree with Ms N’s conclusions that “the loss of the multiple layers of the caregiving system in Melbourne and of Mr Duncan’s frequent and consistent caregiving presence, should be accorded more weight”.
It is the Mother’s evidence she does not believe Ms N has given sufficient weight to her position as the primary carer to X for all of his life or properly considered the Father’s absences during X’s early years in reaching the conclusions that she has.
The Mother is strongly of the view that X’s best interests are best met by him living with her in Canberra. It is her evidence that as X’s primary carer she is best placed to support him in the changes he will need to navigate with the geographical separation of his parents.
The Mother believes she and the Father will work together to support X and ensure they do everything to assist him to adapt and manage his new life.
The Mother believes that the very strong relationship that X has with the Father will continue because she and the Father will be able to put in place flexible and child focused arrangements to ensure X maintains that close relationship.
The Father
The Father relies on his trial affidavit filed 30 October 2020. He also relies on the affidavits of the Paternal Grandmother, Ms A Duncan filed 30 October 2020 and his partner, Ms E filed 30 October 2020. The Father gave viva voce evidence at the final hearing. Ms A Duncan and Ms E were not required for cross-examination.
The Father is very strongly of the opinion that the best outcome for X is for both he and the Mother to live in Melbourne and X continue to live in the shared care arrangement the parties have had in place since separation as it is very apparent that X is thriving under the parties’ current arrangements for their son.
Given the Mother’s evidence that she will move to Canberra whatever the outcome of the current litigation, it is the Father’s belief that X’s best interests are met by X remaining in Melbourne with him and spending as much time as is possible with the Mother.
It is the Fathers evidence that he believes X remaining in Melbourne is in his best interests because not only will he have the ongoing care of his Father with whom he has a very close, loving and meaningful relationship, he will also have the benefit of the familiarity, consistency and support of his community which includes the childcare centre he has attended since he was 14 months of age, the extended paternal and maternal families, his friends and their families with whom he regularly interacts as well as his neighbours and close community who have been part of his life since his birth.
The Father spoke very positively of the Mother as a parent and of the close and loving relationship X has with her.
The Father has consulted a child psychologist in relation to the impact on X of his parents not living in the same city as he has been used to and has discussed with that psychologist strategies to assist X through what the Father openly concedes will be a very difficult adjustment for him.
It is the Father’s evidence that X is developing a positive relationship with his partner Ms E who has been living with him during the COVID-19 lockdown.
The Father agrees that during his relationship with the Mother he was required to travel for work and for family commitments and that this was an issue between he and the Mother.
It is the Father’s evidence that during COVID he has not been able to travel for work because of the travel restrictions. It is the Father’s evidence that he anticipates that post COVID the level of travel previously required for his work will be significantly diminished and will be replaced by the electronic arrangements that have developed during COVID.
The Father agrees that the head office of the organisation he works for is based in Canberra. It is his evidence that pre-COVID he travelled to Canberra six to eight times a year. It is his evidence that when he travels to Canberra for work it was usually for one overnight and involved very long days. He is of the view that if X is living in Canberra, it would be very difficult for him to spend a lot of time with him if he were required to travel to Canberra for work purposes because of the hours he is required to work on those trips.
It is the Father’s evidence that if there is an occasion where he is required to travel for work his parents, despite living in Darwin, will make themselves available to assist in the care of X as will his close support network which includes Ms E, his Aunt, close family friends and the friends he has made through X’s childcare.
It is the Father’s evidence that if X is permitted to relocate with the Mother to Canberra he has thought long and hard about whether he too would move to Canberra in order to be able to continue a shared care arrangement for X. It is his evidence that such a move is not feasible as he has a fantastic job in Melbourne that cannot be transferred to Canberra, his now partner is Melbourne based and she cannot move to Canberra with him because of her own work and family commitments, and because his home and friendship group are all in Melbourne.
It is the Father’s evidence that he believes that he and the Mother will be able to continue to communicate positively and work together closely to put in place the most appropriate and flexible arrangements to ensure that X is able to see and spend time with each of them as much as is possible.
It is the Father’s evidence that his parents own an apartment in Suburb P which they stay in when they come to visit he, X and the extended paternal family in Melbourne. His parents also have a car which is garaged at his place for their use when in Melbourne. Otherwise his parents offer the apartment for short term rental on Airbnb. It is the Father’s evidence that if X remains living with him in Melbourne, his parents have offered the Mother the use of the apartment and their car when she travels to Melbourne to see X upon her giving them sufficient notice so that they can ensure it is not rented out as an Airbnb.
In the affidavit of the Paternal Grandmother filed 30 October 2020, Ms A Duncan confirms that when the Mother is in Melbourne to see X they are prepared to offer their apartment and car to the Mother for her use in Melbourne for up to a week each month and more if the apartment is available provided the Mother gives them one months’ notice and they have not already rented the apartment out at the time of receipt of that notice.
Ms A Duncan deposes to having a positive relationship with the Mother and that she would be happy for the Mother to liaise directly with her to make arrangements to stay in the apartment in the event X remains in Melbourne with the Father.
Ms N
Ms N is a regulation 7 Family Consultant. She was engaged by the parties to prepare a family report in this matter. Ms N’s Family Report dated 30 November 2020 is attached to her affidavit filed 1 December 2020. Ms N also gave viva voce evidence at the final hearing.
In her Family Report Ms N speaks positively of both parties’ parenting capacity.
At paragraph [75] Ms N describes the Mother as a “confident parent with an appreciation of her parenting obligations and ability to provide for X’s development, welfare and safety. She spoke thoughtfully about X’s needs demonstrating a parenting mind and ability to focus on X”.
When discussing the Father’s parenting capacity at paragraph [54] she states that the Father “presented as appreciative of his parenting obligations and thoughtful about X’s needs. He presented as particularly concerned to provide for his development with regard to education, psychosocial support and X’s relationship with his Mother and significant others”.
When giving her viva voce evidence it was put to Ms N that the parties were two stellar parents to which she responded “they’re extraordinary”.
She notes X to have a secure attachment relationship with both parents. Temperamentally he presents as psychologically resilient for his age and as well socialised.
When considering the parties’ new partners, Ms N in paragraph [91] of her Family Report describes Ms E as a “warm and thoughtful adult who is mindful of her role and boundaries with regard to X”.
In relation to the Mother’s new partner Mr A, Ms N also notes in paragraph [92] that he presented as a thoughtful adult.
In paragraph [95] Ms N notes that like the Mother, Mr A referred to his children as like “sisters” to X. She states that when she asked Mr A how he thought X would manage separation from the Father if he was allowed to move to Canberra, Mr A referred to his own experience of parental separation at the age of six, his wish to support X’s relationship with the Father and his comment “he’s very young, so he’ll adapt, children are very resilient”.
In her report Ms N concludes that she finds more strengths than deficits in the caregiving system currently being provided by the parties for X.
Under the heading “Evaluation” Ms N discusses the Mother in the following terms:
“174. Ms Hudson demonstrates willingness and ability to competently care for X and he demonstrates a strong bond with her. She is thoughtful about a young child’s needs and overall, provides psychological/emotional support for X as he has grown.
176. Despite her views to the contrary, it is apparent that Mr Duncan’s facilitative parenting
when they were together, also contributed to the positive caregiving system for X, so that for his first three years, his development was supported and nurtured.
178. Ms Hudson’s employment opportunity in Canberra and the developing relationship with Mr A will bring their own stresses as she adapts to a different workplace and to establishing a household with Mr A, a household that will also include two young children of the same age as X, who have only recently also experienced parental separation.
179. While Ms Hudson acknowledges the need for X to have some time to adapt to the changes before, she commences employment, the stressors noted above will continue to not only impact Ms Hudson but also X.
180. Ms Hudson presents as over-estimating X’s capacity to manage such considerable changes to his caregiving system, given that she will be the only emotionally significant resource that will be available to him in the absence of Mr Duncan’s consistent caregiving presence and the emotionally significant childcare, community and extended family psychosocial systems available to him in Melbourne.
181. While Mr A presents as a capable adult who might be significantly involved with X, that relationship will take time to build, despite both Ms Hudson and Mr A’s view. Their somewhat precipitous reference to Mr A’s attitude towards X as a son and to his children as X’s sisters, does not account for the recency of their relationship and the need for all three children to build relationships in the context of their developmental capability.
183. To her credit, Ms Hudson has attempted to consider all options for X’s caregiving and she acknowledges that the Court might determine that X is to remain in Melbourne. She has indicated that she will relocate to Canberra regardless of such a determination.
184. In my assessment, Ms Hudson is psychologically unprepared for the impact of such a change to her relationship with X. While acknowledging that she will be ‘upset’, the separation from X that is likely to be for extended periods of time, will have a considerable emotional impact, particularly given Ms Hudson’s own history of ruptured attachment relationships through adoption.”

When discussing the Father, Ms N sets out the following:
“185. Mr Duncan is a competent parent, not only willing but also able to provide for X’s development, welfare and safety. He demonstrates a particularly sound parenting mind, in that he is thoughtful about X’s needs, attuned to him and to providing for his emotional wellbeing as well as developmental stimulation.
186. Mr Duncan also has a supportive relationship with Ms E and while only recent, their attitudes towards X and expectations that he builds a relationship with Ms E, are focused on his needs and capability.
187. Notably, Mr Duncan has supportive extended family who are actively involved with X, not only based in Melbourne but also interstate. He also supports Ms Hudson’s family in maintaining a relationship with him and with X. This is a protective factor that adds to a child’s emotional wellbeing and thus can facilitate their intellectual and psychological development.
188. Mr Duncan has actively sustained a caregiving system for X that includes a psychosocial contribution from X’s childcare, children, parents and staff, and he supports X’s involvement in the community.
189. Mr Duncan has also built a rewarding professional career and like Ms Hudson, in this they are positive role models for X. He is clear that any relocation for him would mean the loss of such satisfying employment.
190. Like Ms Hudson, Mr Duncan to his credit has considered the options for X’s living arrangements, but unlike her, he firmly holds that X’s best interests will be met by remaining in Melbourne.
191. And unlike Ms Hudson, Mr Duncan is cognizant of the emotional impact for himself of separation of X from him. To his credit, Mr Duncan has utilised the resources of a psychologist to address X’s needs and if the Court does determine that X can relocate to Canberra, then it will be crucial that he attends this psychologist to address his grief and emotional distress.”
Under the heading “The child’s development in relation to age appropriate physical, emotional and intellectual capacity”, Ms N states the following:
“192. X is developing physically and intellectually to standard. He is clearly thriving in the childcare environment, presenting as socially adept with sound language skills and well developed physical capacity.
193. Emotionally, X also presents with a level of age-appropriate maturity and he has clearly been protected overall from parental conflict, reflected in the strong relationships not only with his parents, but also their respective partners and extended families. X presents as feeling much loved in both households.
194. X presents as having managed Ms Hudson and Mr Duncan’s separation with relatively limited impact on his development. It was notable in the observations for this report, that X was not only delighted to reunite with Ms Hudson, but also expressed the sense of her absence while he had been in Mr Duncan’s care, and showed delight at the prospect of returning to her care following the report appointment.
195. The above suggests that should the Court determine that X remains in Melbourne and Ms Hudson elects to relocate to Canberra, then he will be affected by their separation. Regressed behaviour such as clinginess, increased separation distress, sleep difficulties and even toileting and eating difficulties might emerge and impact on learning, as the reality of the changes to his relationship with his mother begin to impact on X.
196. Ms Hudson and Mr Duncan will need to be attuned and responsive to such impacts and it is likely that not only the parents will benefit from consultation with a child psychologist, but that X might also require clinical support.”
Under the heading “Ms Hudson’s proposal to relocate X’s primary residence to the Canberra area”, Ms N at paragraphs [211]-[214] states as follows:-
“211. If weight is to be accorded to the caregiving system that each parent can provide, then on the basis of facilitating X’s optimum psychological development, the caregiving system in Melbourne is the most facilitative.
212. X has thrived in his development because he has had the presence of two competent caregivers. If X is permitted to relocate to Canberra, Mr Duncan’s caregiving will be limited and thus the risk to X’s development of such a loss is high.
213. Even though Ms Hudson considers that X has sufficient psychological resilience to adapt to the changes because she will be the consistent caregiving figure, the risk that X’s development will be compromised by the loss of the multiple layers of the caregiving system in Melbourne and of Mr Duncan’s frequent and consistent caregiving presence, should be accorded more weight.
214. If Ms Hudson elects to remain in Melbourne or returns to live in Melbourne at some point, then equal shared care with Mr Duncan on a week about basis for X would be appropriate and overall, meet X’s best interests.”
Ms N’s recommendations for X’s living arrangements are set out in paragraphs [223] – [230] as follows:-
“223. If Ms Hudson elects to remain in Melbourne or if she does return to live in Melbourne at any time, then X lives with her and with his father Mr B Duncan on a week about basis.
224. X is not permitted to relocate to Canberra with his mother Ms Hudson.
225. X remains in Melbourne and lives with his father Mr Duncan.
226. If Ms Hudson elects to relocate to Canberra, then X spends the time in her care that she proposes as the ‘non-preferred option’, that is, alternate weekends between Friday and Sunday in Melbourne and alternate weekends in Canberra, but with Ms Hudson travelling with X to Canberra, along with an additional week in each three month period.
227. If the Court determines that X is permitted to relocate to Canberra with Ms Hudson, then her proposal that she refers to as ‘Option C’ would be appropriate.
228. Communication with the non-resident parent should be frequent and also as X chooses.
229. Ms Hudson attends a child psychologist such as Ms Q to address X’s needs.
230. Mr Duncan continues to attend the child psychologist that he has engaged or commences consulting with Ms Q as well.”
When giving her viva voce evidence, Counsel for the Father put to Ms N that on the Mother’s case she was drawing a distinction between primary and secondary carers. The following exchange took place between the Father’s Counsel and Ms N:
Father’s Counsel: “And I want to suggest that in this case, that title that we often bandy about in these parenting cases is a distinction without a difference in this case. Would you agree with that?”
Ms N: “Yes I would”.
Father’s Counsel: “At paragraph 208, you have said that in X’s case it’s clear from his sound development so far, that whilst Ms Hudson has provided primary caregiving, Mr Duncan has also contributed substantially to facilitative caregiving. Now, in the mother’s case outline, those words that you have used – primary caregiving and facilitative caregiving – they have given rise to an argument that there’s some qualitative difference between primary and facilitative caregiving. Was that your intention?”
Ms N: “No, your Honour. I adopted primary caregiving as a term used by the mother and I evaluated the father as he could be regarded as the second primary caregiver, if you like. There’s some controversy in the social science field about that, but I would see both parents as equally facilitative and providing nurturing stimulation, learning responsiveness, emotional support for this child’s development”.
In her report Ms N describes her observations of X with both his parents. At the time of the appointment X had been in the Father’s care for 6 days. When he saw the Mother in the waiting area he ran delightedly towards her, the Mother picked him up and X leant into her and told her “I missed you mum”.
Ms N’s report also sets out that when the Father entered the observation room, X looked equally as delighted to see his Father and separated very easily from his Mother and engaged in happily playing with his Father.
In her viva voce evidence Ms N indicated that X’s response to the Mother indicates a very strong attachment relationship and it also indicates a propensity for anxiety if there is extended separation from the Mother.
Ms N was asked whether she would have anticipated X to show a similar response to his father as he showed to his mother if he had not seen his father for several days. Ms N’s responded “I think. given the current relationship I observed for the child with both parents yes. I think if we had of been considering this some 18 months ago there would be far more anxiety upon separation from the Mother, given her primary caregiving role, but the Father has really increased his role with the child so yes, I think that the boy would show quite a deal of separation distress from his Father.”
It was suggested to Ms N that whichever parent it is decided X is to live with, X will be severely impacted by his separation from the other parent. Ms N responded “I think so, yes. Yes, I think so”.
Counsel for the Father put the following proposition to Ms N:
“Ms N, in some of these cases where a parent – where a family presents for interviews and they’ve been with the other parent and returning to a primary carer, you would anticipate that not only is there delight at seeing that parent, but in some cases as a result of having missed that parent and being separated from them for a little while, we sometimes observe some reluctance or disinterest in spending time in the observation session with the parent they’ve already been with for the week. Do you agree with that?
To which Ms N responded “Yes. Very much so, yes”.
Counsel for the Father then asked “and that is not the case here?” to which Ms N replied “it was distinctly not the case”.
Counsel for the Father then put to Ms N “and that tells us, does it not, that the attachments and bonds are equal and that the primary care label is a distinction without a difference for X?” Ms N responded “yes”.
In her viva voce evidence Ms N expressed some concern about the Mother’s proposal that she and X would immediately move in to live with Mr A and his two young children in the event that the Mother is successful in her application to relocate to Canberra with X. Ms N observed:
“I think I’ve already alluded to the need for the mother and Mr A to be mindful about the needs of the children, to slowly introduce and slowly build a family unit. Given the recency of their commitment to a relationship and to ask a child who has been an only child, such as X, to now adapt very quickly to having two siblings of the same age is an enormous psychological challenge for any child.”
It is Ms N’s evidence that in the event the Mother is successful in her application to relocate to Canberra with X, it would be in X’s best interests that she initially live independently of Mr A when she and X move to Canberra in order to give X time to adjust to the enormous changes such a move will entail and to enable him to slowly and age appropriately build up his relationship with Mr A and Mr A’s two young girls.
Ms N also expressed some concern about the impact on X if he were living in Canberra and returns to Melbourne once a month to spend time with his Father. Ms N’s concern is that X would experience such visits as leaving rather than staying as the visits would reinforce his realisation that his life with his Father has considerably reduced. Ms N expressed the view that this would be intellectually and cognitively difficult for a child of X’s age to understand as he does not have the emotional maturity to understand the level of grief that he is going to experience and he is going to be possibly angry that he is not staying with his father as he used to.
At the conclusion of her viva voce evidence, Ms N was asked why in paragraph [213] she states “the risk that X’s development will be compromised by the loss of the multiple layers of the caregiving system in Melbourne and of Mr Duncan’s frequent and consistent caregiving presence should be accorded more weight.” Ms N responded as follows:
“Your Honour, I don’t like doing mathematics with people’s lives, but given that both parents are equally competent and capable, to look over the resources that are going to be available for X with – in both care-giving environments, the one that’s going to be established by Ms – by the mother in Canberra, and the one that’s already established in Melbourne by the father, I see the Melbourne environment as providing far less stress and more protection for him to – content for the child to continue to address his developmental tasks. As you rightly say, he’s poised to become a kindergarten child and then a primary school child, and this has enormous challenges for children, even though we’ve got a psychologically resilient child who has been clearly raised very well, the risks are very high, should he be Canberra-based.”
Ms N confirmed that it is her recommendation and expert opinion that X’s needs are best met by him remaining in Melbourne with the Father.
THE LAW
In this matter the Mother is seeking to relocate with the parties’ four year old son X from Melbourne to Canberra.
Whilst relocation cases are often discussed as if they form a discreet subset of parenting cases that should somehow be determined differently to other parenting matters, the jurisprudence makes it clear that this is not so and that a relocation matter is to be determined in the same way that all parenting matters are determined, that is, by following the legislative framework prescribed under the Family Law Act 1975(Cth) (the “Act”) to determine what orders are in the child’s best interest.
The Full Court in Taylor v Barker [2007] 37 Fam FLR 461 at 475, held:
“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, at least in so far as that approach is possible: see U v U (2002) 211 CLR 238; 191 ALR 289; 29 Fam LR 74; (2002) FLC 93-112; [2002] HCA 36 and Bolitho v Cohen (2005) 33 Fam LR 471; (2005) FLC 93-224; [2005] FamCA 458.”
The Act does not address the concept of relocation. However, over time the superior courts have set out a number of principles to assist Judges when they are dealing with parenting matters where relocation is in issue. In paragraph [44] of Fawkner & Kado [2020] FCCA 1535, Judge McGuire summarised those principles as follows:
“(a)Relocation matters are to be determined generally in accordance with Part VII of the Act and within the context of making the necessary findings relevant to children's best interests with reference to the factors in s.60CC of the Act but also within the context of s.65DAA considerations of equal time or 'substantial and significant time' and ‘reasonable practicability’;
(b)The child's best interests remain the paramount but not the sole consideration;
(c)Neither party bears an onus to establish that the relocation or a continuation of an existing regime will best promote the interests of the child;
(d)An applicant for relocation need not show 'compelling reasons' in support of the relocation but must, in my view, give or adduce probative evidence which permits the Court, on balance, to find that a parenting order which involves a relocation of a child is in that child's best interest;
(e)The child's best interest must be weighed and balanced with the open 'right' of a parent’s freedom of movement but such right must ultimately defer to the child's best interest;
(f)The Court must consider the advantages and disadvantages of each of the parent’s proposals including the proposed relocation and may, if required, formulate proposals itself in the best interests of the child.”
Best Interests of the Child
Part VII of the Act deals with children. Section 60B of the Act sets out the objects and underlying principles of Part VII of the Act as follows (omitting for present purposes s.60B(3) which deals with Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders):
“1. The objects of this Part are to ensure that the best interests of children are met by:
(a)ensuring that children have the benefit of both of their parents having a meaningful involvement in their lives, to the maximum extent consistent with the best interests of the child; and
(b)protecting children from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence; and
(c)ensuring that children receive adequate and proper parenting to help them achieve their full potential; and
(d)ensuring that parents fulfil their duties, and meet their responsibilities, concerning the care, welfare and development of their children.
2.The principles underlying these objects are that (except when it is or would be contrary to a child’s best interests):
(a)children have the right to know and be cared for by both their parents, regardless of whether their parents are married, separated, have never married or have never lived together; and
(b)children have a right to spend time on a regular basis with, and communicate on a regular basis with, both their parents and other people significant to their care, welfare and development (such as grandparents and other relatives); and
(c)parents jointly share duties and responsibilities concerning the care, welfare and development of their children; and
(d)parents should agree about the future parenting of their children; and
(e)children have a right to enjoy their culture (including the right to enjoy that culture with other people who share that culture).”
Section 60CA of the Act provides that:
“In deciding whether to make a particular parenting order in relation to a child, a court must regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration.”
To determine what is in the best interests of the child, the Court must consider the matters set out in Section 60CC(2) and Section 60CC(3) of the Act. Each of the matters contained in those subsections, where relevant to the matter before the Court must be considered and assessed in the context of each of the parties’ proposals. The Court should then make a decision as to which of the parties proposals or such other arrangements as the Court determines given the Court is not bound by the parties’ proposals (see AMS v AIF (1999) 199 CLR 160, U & U (2002) 211 CLR 238), is in the children’s best interests.
Section 60CC (2)
Section 60CC(2) of the Act sets out the primary considerations that the Court must take into account when determining what is in the child’s best interests. They are as follows:
Section 60CC(2)(a) – The Benefit of the Child having a meaningful relationship with both of the child’s parents
In Heath v Hemming(No.2) [2011] FamCA 749, Justice Kent in paragraph [104] reviewed the authorities relating to parenting cases involving proposed relocation. In subsection (a) of paragraph 104 His Honour considered Section 60CC(2)(a) and summarised the case law in relation to the benefit of the child having a meaningful relationship with both of the child’s parents as follows:
“(a)s60CC(2)(a) expresses the primary consideration of the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of the child’s parents. Similarly, s60CC(3)(b) requires the Court to consider the nature of the relationship of the child with, inter alia both parents and the objects and principles expressed in s60B also contain various references to the involvement of both parents in the life of their child.
In Sigley & Evor (2011) 44 Fam LR 439 the Full Court recently considered what is required by the term “meaningful relationship” in s60CC(2)(a). The Full Court:
(i)approved the interpretation that a “meaningful relationship” is one which is important, significant and valuable to the child (citing Mazorski v Albright [2007] FamCA 520; (2007) 37 Fam LR 518 per Brown J and McCall v Clark [2009] FamCAFC 92; (2009) FLC 93-405 per the Full Court);
(ii)concluded that the preferred interpretation of “benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship” in
s60CC(2)(a) is that the Court should consider and weigh the evidence at the date of the hearing and determine how, if it is in a child’s best interests, orders can be framed to ensure the particular child has a meaningful relationship with both parents (referred to by the Full Court as “the prospective approach”). However, the Full Court noted that s60CC(3)(b) requires a Court to explore existing relationships between a child and the child’s parents and other persons and thus, depending upon the factual circumstances, examination of the evidence as to the nature of the child’s relationships at the date of hearing (referred to by the Full Court as “the present relationship approach”) may also be relevant, for example where a significant relationship had not been established between a child and a parent at the date of trial;
(iii)confirmed that the legislation aspires to promote a meaningful relationship, not an optimal relationship. (Citing M v S [2006] FamCA 1408; (2007) FLC 93-313 per Dessau J at [38]-[39]; Godfrey v Sanders [2007] FamCA 102 per Kay J at [33]-[36] and Champness v Hanson [2009] FamCAFC 96; (2009) FLC 93-407 per the Full Court at [103]);
(iv)concluded that “meaningful relationship” is a legal construct, not a psychological one. It is for the Court, not an expert, to determine what constitutes a meaningful relationship;
Clearly, if it is determined that a meaningful relationship with both parents is in the child’s best interests the starting point will be to consider whether such a relationship is already established. If not, whilst all factors must be weighed in the balance, it may be a determinative factor in assessing a proposed relocation. If such a relationship is already established, the consideration will be whether such a relationship can be promoted in the context of the proposed relocation. In either case, factors such as the child’s age and level of maturity (s60CC(3)(g)) may assume particular importance. This may also lead a Court to consider some proposal other than that of either party, for example, providing for some period of time before the relocation is permitted to occur during which a “meaningful relationship” with the non-relocating parent may be established or further established or to allow the child to reach an age where it is likely that a meaningful relationship will be maintainable.”

The very close and loving relationship that X has with both his parents has clearly been set out in this judgment.
Given the Mother’s evidence that she will move to Canberra and the Father’s evidence he will remain in Melbourne whatever the outcome of this litigation is, the shared care arrangement that the parties have had in place for X since they separated cannot continue.
Ms N’s evidence is that X will be severely impacted by the loss of the other parent as the constant he is used to having in his life and that both parties should anticipate possible regression in his behaviour while he adjusts to this enormous change in his circumstances.
It is Ms N’s evidence that:
“alternate weekends, either way, would be helpful for the child. It would allow for frequency which a child – that a child as young as X requires. He has not yet got the capacity to remember everything about significant relationships and that needs to be facilitated for at least another 12 months, I would suggest.”
Section 60CC(2)(b): the need to protect the child from physical and psychological harm from being subjected to or exposed to abuse, neglect or family violence
This is not an issue in this matter.
Section 60CC3
S60CC3 of the Act sets out the additional considerations the Court must consider when determining what is in X’s best interests.
Each of the matters under this section will be considered in turn where applicable to this matter.
Section 60CC(3)(a) any views expressed by the child and any factors (such as the child's maturity or level of understanding) that the court thinks are relevant to the weight it should give to the child’s views
Given X’s very young age this subsection is not relevant.
Section 60CC(3)(b): the nature of the relationship of the child with:
(i)each of the child’s parents; and
(ii)other persons (including any grandparents or other relative of the child)
The Mother describes herself as X’s primary carer. The Father describes a close relationship with X during the parties’ relationship and believes that since separation both he and the Mother have become equal primary carers of X.
I accept that prior to the parties’ separation the Mother was X’s primary carer. She took 14 months maternity leave after X’s birth whilst the Father continued full-time work. The Father was also absent from home for considerable periods during the parties’ relationship because of his work, family and social commitments.
Post-separation the very child focussed living arrangements that the parties put in place by agreement has, on the evidence of Ms N, resulted in X now being equally attached to both of the parties.
As has been well set out in this judgment it is Ms N’s evidence that both parents are now equally facilitative parents and provide nurturing stimulation, learning responses and emotional support for X’s development.
X also has positive relationships with both parties’ new partners albeit those relationships are in their early stages.
X also has close relationships with his extended maternal and paternal families having spent regular time with his grandparents and extended families throughout his life.
Section 60CC(3)(c): the extent to which each of the child’s parents has taken or failed to take the opportunity:
(i)to participate in making decisions about major long-term issues in relation to the child; and
(ii)to spend time with the child; and
(iii)to communicate with the child
Ms N describes X’s parents as exceptional and I am in complete agreement with her.
Since separation they have co-parented X in a child focused, cooperative and sensible way which has ensured that X is a happy, well-adjusted and delightful little boy who is very secure in his relationship with both his parents.
Section 60CC(3)(ca): the extent to which each of the child’s parents have fulfilled, or failed to fulfil, the parent’s obligation to maintain the child
Not relevant.
Section 60CC(3)(d): the likely effect of any changes in the child’s circumstances, including the likely effect on the child of any separation from:
(i)either of his parents; or
(ii)any other child or other person (including any grandparent or other relative of the child), with whom he or she has been living
Given the Mother’s evidence that she will relocate to Canberra and the Father’s evidence that he will remain in Melbourne whatever the decision of this court, there must as a matter of necessity be a significant change in X’s circumstances given the distance between Canberra and Melbourne.
Whilst it is the Mother’s evidence that she believes that with the appropriate support X will adjust to the changes in his living arrangements, it is the evidence of the Father and of Ms N that X will be effected by his separation from one of his parents and that regressed behaviours such as clinginess, increased separation distress, sleeping difficulties and even toilet and eating difficulties might emerge and impact on his learning. Ms N recommends the parties and X will be assisted by a professional child psychologist in supporting X and themselves to adjust to the change in theirs and X’s circumstances.
Section 60CC(3)(e): the practical difficulty and expense of a child spending time with and communicating with a parent and whether that difficulty or expense will substantially affect the child’s right to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis
The parties are in agreement that X should spend time with the parent he is not living with on alternate weekends, such time to alternate between the city X is living in and the city of the parent he is not living with. The parties are also in agreement that there be a sharing of holidays and special occasions.
If X remains living in Melbourne with the Father, the Father’s parents, who own an Airbnb apartment in Suburb P, have generously offered to make that apartment available to the Mother when she is in Melbourne spending time with X subject to her giving them sufficient notice that she would seek the use of their apartment.
Where the parties are apart is on the practical arrangements of which parent is to do the travelling for the time X spends with the other parent. The Father’s proposal is that the non-resident parent collect X at the commencement of their time with him and the resident parent collect X at the conclusion of that time with the other parent. The Mother proposes that the parent X is living with be responsible for all the travel when X travels to spend time with the non-resident parent.
Section 60CC(3)(f): the capacity of each of the child’s parents and any other person to provide for the needs of the child including emotional and intellectual needs
As has been noted multiple times in this judgment, these parties are exemplary parents who have and will continue to meet the practical, emotional, intellectual and developmental needs of their son.
Section 60CC(3)(g): the maturity, sex, lifestyle and background (including lifestyle, culture and traditions) of the child and of either of the child’s parents, and any other characteristics of the child that the Court thinks are relevant
Not relevant.
Section 60CC(3)(i): the attitude to the child, and to the responsibilities of parenthood, demonstrated by each of the child’s parents
Again, it has to be noted that these parties are exemplary parents
Section 60CC(3)(j): any family violence involving the child or a member of the child’s family.
Section 60CC(3)(k): if a family violence order applies, or has applied, to the child or a member of the child's family--any relevant inferences that can be drawn from the order, taking into account the following:
(i)the nature of the order;
(ii)the circumstances in which the order was made;
(iii)any evidence admitted in proceedings for the order;
(iv)any findings made by the court in, or in proceedings for, the order;
(v)any other relevant matter
Not relevant.
Section 60CC(3)(l): whether it would be preferable to make the order that would be least likely to lead to the institution of further proceedings in relation to the child
Were it not for the opportunities both personally and professionally available to the Mother in Canberra and therefore her wish to relocate with X in order to take up those opportunities, these parties would never have been involved in Court proceedings.
Both parties agree that whilst they are asking this court to determine which of his parents X is to primarily live with and to have a blueprint of spend time arrangements, such is their commitment to ensuring that the living arrangements for X meet his best interests, they will both be flexible and adjust X’s living arrangements so that they best meet his developmental needs as he gets older and ensure he is afforded every opportunity to maintain his close and loving relationship with both his parents.
Section 60CC(3)(m): any other factor or circumstance that the Court thinks is relevant
Both parties agree that in the event they are living in the same city, a shared care regime will be put in place for X’s care.
Presumption of Equal Shared Responsibility and the Consideration of Equal or Substantial and Significant Time
The Full Court in the matter of Taylor v Barker (supra) stated at paragraph [60]:
“In our view his honour dealt with the relocation proposed in the context of his consideration of section 60CC and section 60DAA, at least in so far as it was possible to do so. It should be implicit in our conclusion in relation to this ground, that a relocation proposal should be considered and evaluated, so far as possible in the context of the making of the necessary findings in relation to the relevant s60C matters; however…such a proposal now also needs to be considered in the context of s60DAA”.
Section 61DAA of the Act provides that the Court must apply a presumption that it is in the best interests of the child for the child’s parents to have equal shared parental responsibility for the child. This presumption is rebutted if there are reasonable grounds to believe that either of the child’s parents have engaged in abuse of the child or family violence or where there is evidence that it would not be in the child’s best interests for the parents to have equal shared parental responsibility for that child.
In this matter both parties are in agreement that orders should be made that they have equal shared parental responsibility for X.
Given these parties proven capacity to co-parent cooperatively and in such a child focussed manner there is absolutely no question that an order for equal shared parental responsibility should be made.
Where the parents have equal joint parental responsibility for a child, section 65DAA of the Act requires the Court to consider the child spending equal time, or a substantial and significant time, with each parent.
Section 65DAA(1) provides as follows:
1.If a parenting order provides (or is to provide) that a child’s parents are to have equal shared parental responsibility for the child, the Court must:
(a)consider whether the child spending equal time with each of the parents would be in the best interests of the child; and
(b)consider whether the child spending equal time with each of the parents is reasonably practicable; and
(c)if it is, consider making an order to provide (or including a provision in the order) for the child to spend equal time with each of the parents.”
Sections 65DAA(2) and (3) of the Act provide as follows:
2.        If:
(a)a parenting order provides (or is to provide) that a child’s parents are to have equal shared parental responsibility for the child; and
(b) the court does not make an order (or include a provision in the order) for the child to spend equal time with each of the parents; the court must:
(i)consider whether the child spending substantial and significant time with each of the parents would be in the best interests of the child; and
(ii)consider whether the child spending substantial and significant time with each of the parents is reasonably practicable; and
(iii)if it is, consider making an order to provide (or including a provision in the order) for the child to spend substantial and significant time with each of the parents.
3.For the purposes of subsection (2), a child will be taken to spend substantial and significant time with a parent only if:
(a)       the time the child spends with the parent includes both:
(i)        days that fall on weekends and holidays; and
(ii)       days that do not fall on weekends or holidays; and
(b)the time the child spends with the parent allows the parent to be involved in:
(i)        the child’s daily routine; and
(ii)occasions and events that are of particular significance to the child; and
(c)the time the child spends with the parent allows the child to be involved in occasions and events that are of special significance to the parent.
Section 65DAA(5) of the Act provides as follows:
5.In determining for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2) whether it is reasonably practicable for a child to spend equal time, or substantial and significant time, with each of the child’s parents, the court must have regard to:
(a)       how far apart the parents live from each other; and
(b)the parents’ current and future capacity to implement an arrangement for the child spending equal time, or substantial and significant time, with each of the parents; and
(c)the parents’ current and future capacity to communicate with each other and resolve difficulties that might arise in implementing an arrangement of that kind; and
(d)       the impact that an arrangement of that kind would have on the child; and
(e)       such other matters as the court considers relevant.”
In the matter of MRR v GR [2010] HCA 4, the High Court considered the interrelationship between section 60CA, section 61DA(1) and section 65DAA of the Act.
In MRR v GR (supra), the High Court held at paragraph [9]:
“Each of sub-ss (1)(b) and (2)(d) of s 65DAA require the Court to consider whether it is reasonably practicable for the child to spend equal time or substantial and significant time with each of the parents. It is clearly intended that the Court determine that question. Sub-section (5) provides in that respect that the Court "must have regard" to certain matters, such as how far apart the parents live from each other and their capacity to implement the arrangement in question, and "such other matters as the court considers relevant", [i]n determining for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2) whether it is reasonably practicable for a child to spend equal time, or substantial and significant time, with each of the child's parents.”
The High Court then held at paragraph [13]:
“Section 65DAA(1) is expressed in imperative terms. It obliges the Court to consider both the question whether it is in the best interests of the child to spend equal time with each of the parents (par (a)) and the question whether it is reasonably practicable that the child spend equal time with each of them (par (b)). It is only where both questions are answered in the affirmative that consideration may be given, under par (c), to the making of an order. The words with which par (c) commences ("if it is") refer back to the two preceding questions and make plain that the making of an order can only be considered if the findings mentioned are made. A determination as a question of fact that it is reasonably practicable that equal time be spent with each parent is a statutory condition which must be fulfilled before the Court has power to make a parenting order of that kind. It is a matter upon which power is conditioned much as it is where a jurisdictional fact must be proved to exist. If such a finding cannot be made, sub-ss (2)(a) and (b) require that the prospect of the child spending substantial and significant time with each parent then be considered. That sub-section follows the same structure as sub-s (1) and requires the same questions concerning the child's best interests and reasonable practicability to be answered in the context of the child spending substantial and significant time with each parent.”
The High Court further held 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 s61DA(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. Since such parenting would only be possible in this case if both parents remained in Mount Isa, Coker FM was obliged to consider the circumstances of the parties, more particularly those of the mother, in determining whether equal time parenting was reasonably practicable.”
Thus, the Court must consider not only whether it is in the child’s best interests to spend equal or significant and substantial time with each of their parents but also whether it is reasonably practicable for the child to do so.
Given the Mother’s evidence that she will relocate to Canberra and the Father’s evidence that he will remain in Melbourne no matter where X primarily lives, it is apparent that it is not practicable to make orders for X to spend equal time or significant and substantial time as defined by the Act, with both his parents.
CONCLUSION
Relocation cases can be amongst the most difficult matters to determine. As a matter of practicality they may result in a decision which sees a child living a considerable distance from one of their parents and therefore limiting the amount of time that child can spend with their non-resident parent and the level of involvement that non-resident parent can have in their child’s day to day activities.
The cases become even more difficult where you have two loving, caring and child focussed parents with whom the child has a close and loving relationship and with whom the child post-separation has had both parents as an active part of their daily lives.
This matter is such a case. After the parties’ separation they put in place living arrangements for their four-year-old son X that initially saw him living nine days with his Mother and five days with his Father a fortnight. When the Mother increased her work to four days a week, they changed this arrangement so that X was with his Mother eight days a fortnight and his Father six days a fortnight.
Both parties are now moving on with their lives. Both are in new relationships which they consider to be long-term.
The Mother is a qualified healthcare professional who has post graduate qualifications. She is, or was, employed in B unit at Employer B and her division was responsible for all units under Employer B including patients and staff. The last 12 months has involved a significant increase in demand for the Mother’s division at Employer B due to COVID-19 and she was required to be on call 24 hours a day and work considerable overtime including weekends.
The Mother’s new partner Mr A is a permanent public servant and is based in Canberra. He has two young children from a previous relationship and they live with him seven days a fortnight.
Given the demands of her employment the Mother began exploring opportunities in her field of expertise that would enable her to advance her career and allow a better work life balance than her clinical position with Employer B has provided.
The Mother has been successful in finding such a position. That position however is based in Canberra.
The Mother is therefore seeking to relocate to Canberra with X so that she can take up what she describes as her “once in a lifetime” dream job and pursue her relationship with her new partner, Mr A.
The Mother raised the possibility of relocating out of Melbourne with X with the Father as early as February 2020. The Father immediately advised the Mother that he did not agree to X leaving Melbourne.

In July 2020 the Mother was successful in obtaining the position in Canberra and again put the Father on notice that she was seeking to relocate to Canberra with X and ideally wished to do so in October 2020. Again the Father made it very clear to the Mother that whilst he had no objection to her moving to Canberra to pursue her opportunities there, he did not agree that X should move with her and put forward his position that if she moved to Canberra, X should stay in Melbourne with him.
The Father’s job in Melbourne is one he too describes as his dream job and it is his evidence that he cannot transfer the position to Canberra.
The Father’s new partner Ms E is Melbourne-based and it is her evidence that for both work and personal reasons she would not be in a position to move to Canberra with the Father in the event the Father moved to Canberra in order to be closer to X.
The parties’ resolved property matters by consent between them and this settlement saw the Father retain the former matrimonial home in Suburb G where he continues to reside.
For these reasons, it is the Father’s evidence that if X were to relocate with the Mother to Canberra it is not feasible for him to move to Canberra.
It is the Mother’s evidence that she intends to move to Canberra even if orders are made for X to remain living in Melbourne.
It is submitted on behalf of the Mother that she has been and remains X’s primary carer and it is in his best interests that he relocate with her to Canberra so that he continues to live primarily with her as she has been his constant parent for most of his life.
Whilst acknowledging that a move to Canberra will require considerable adjustments for X, the Mother believes that X is a resilient and emotionally robust little boy and with her support, the support of Mr A and the support of the Father, he will be able to adjust to the changes he will face and settle happily in Canberra with her.
The Mother openly acknowledges the Father to be a very good parent and that X has a close and loving relationship with him. It is the Mothers evidence that the proposals that she has put in place for X to spend time with his Father are such that X will be able to maintain his close and loving relationship with him. The Mother also agrees with the Father’s evidence that their co-parenting relationship is such that they will be able to ensure that the arrangements for X are always flexible and reflective of his needs.
It is the Father’s evidence that whilst the Mother was X’s primary carer during their relationships, he was very much involved in X’s care during that time and that he and X had a close and loving relationship. It is the Father’s belief that since separation and because of the care arrangements that he and the Mother put in place, X’s attachment to both he and the Mother has developed such that both he and the Mother are now his primary attachment figures.
It is the Father’s belief that a move to Canberra is not in X’s best interests because he would not only be deprived of the Father’s daily care of him, he would also be deprived of all the other supports that X has had in place all his life in Melbourne. These include the day care he has attended since he was 14 months old, his extended paternal and maternal families, his friends and playmates who he not only sees at day care but also socially, his home where the Father continues to live and the friends and neighbours who have been a constant in X’s life since birth.
The Father’s evidence is that whilst X will most definitely struggle with not being able to see his Mother as he has been used to if she moves to Canberra, the impact on him of such a change will be lessened by him continuing to not only have the ongoing care of his Father but also the consistency, certainty and familiarity of all his other support networks if he remains living in Melbourne.
The Father highlights that if X moves to Canberra with his Mother, he will not only lose the close contact with him, he will also lose his other supports and will have to struggle with trying to adjust to new childcare, living with the Mother’s new partner and his two young children and having none of the community around him that have been part of his life since birth.
The Report Writer Ms N expresses the view in the Family Report and in her viva voce evidence that whilst the Mother was X’s primary caregiver during the parties’ relationship, he had a facilitative and loving relationship with the Father during the parties’ relationship as well. Ms N is of the view that because of the child focussed and appropriate living arrangements that the parties put in place after separation, X now sees both his parents as his primary caregivers and he is equally attached to both of them.
In her Family Report and in her viva voce evidence, Ms N is in agreement with the arguments proffered by the Father.
Paragraphs [211]-[213] of Ms N’s report are set out in paragraphs [61] and [99] of this judgment and will not be repeated here. Suffice it to say Ms N is of the view that in deciding what is in X’s best interests the loss of the “multiple layers of the caregiving system” in Melbourne and the Father’s frequent and consistent caregiving presence should be accorded more weight and that X should therefore remain living with the Father in Melbourne.
The Mother argues that she should not be punished or prevented from taking up the opportunities that a move to Canberra offers her and that like the Father she too should have the opportunity to advance her career in the job of her dreams and pursue her relationship with a partner that she sees herself spending the rest of her life with. She questions why more weight should be given to the Father being able to remain in Melbourne in the job he loves and where his now partner resides.
I am in complete accord that the Mother should be able to move on with her life and pursue career advancement and personal happiness. Similarly, the Father should be able to make decisions that enable him to maximise his career opportunities and his future long term relationship. The difficulty is that in order to do so, these parties need to live in different cities.
There is no doubt that the optimum outcome for X would be for the current arrangements to continue which would see him in a shared care arrangement so that he receives maximum input from both his parents on an ongoing basis and the additional security, consistency and support of what Ms N terms as the “multiple layers of the caregiving system in Melbourne”.
Such an outcome however is not possible and therefore the Court is faced with what will be in X’s best interests given his parents are no longer going to live in the same city.
As has been noted on multiple occasions in this judgment, these parties are two extraordinary parents and whichever parent X primarily lives with will be a loving, caring, empathetic and appropriate care giver.
I am persuaded by the evidence of Ms N that X’s attachment to both his parents is now equal and he sees them as equally meeting all of his needs.
X is therefore going to be genuinely distressed by the increased absence of one of his parents from his life when the Mother moves to Canberra.
The question therefore is will X’s ongoing development and emotional security be better met if the comfort of the care provided by one of his primary carers is augmented by X being supported by the care giving system that he has always known in Melbourne as opposed to the considerable changes and adjustments he would be required to negotiate in Canberra despite having the comfort and security of his Mother’s care?
In what is an extraordinarily difficult decision, I am ultimately persuaded by the evidence of Ms N that X’s best interests are met by him remaining in Melbourne with his Father and retaining what she terms the “multiple layers of caregiving” in Melbourne.
X will be genuinely distressed by his Mother’s move and will struggle to adjust to not seeing her every week. To have the security of his known caregiving system continuing, being his known child carers, his family home, his extended family and friends readily available to him will make that adjustment a little easier. In contrast, a move to Canberra would not only require X to adjust to the loss of his father’s presence, but would also involve adjusting to a new home, new child care arrangements, living in a new blended family and the loss of his friends and community whom he has known all his life.
Accordingly orders will be made for X to remain living in Melbourne with the Father and for him to spend time with the Mother on alternate weekends, one weekend in Melbourne and the other in Canberra as well as holidays and special occasions.
The Father’s proposal is that when the Mother is spending time with X in Melbourne, such time can be extended if the Mother is able to remain in Melbourne for longer than the weekend.
Given my decision that X will remain living with the Father in Melbourne, the outstanding issue between the parties is what should the travel arrangements be when X spends time with the Mother in Canberra during kindergarten / school terms?
The Father’s proposal is that when X is spending time with the Mother in Canberra, the Mother travel to Melbourne to collect X at the commencement of time and the Father fly to Canberra to collect X at the conclusion of time.
The Father argues that such an arrangement is appropriate given he would otherwise have to fly X to Canberra on the Friday night and either stay in Canberra for the weekend or alternatively fly back to Melbourne Friday night and then back again on Sunday to pick X up. Whilst conceding that this would mean each month the Mother has to make three out of four flights, he argues that that arrangement best meets X’s needs.
It is the Mother’s proposal that she fly to Melbourne to spend time with X in Melbourne and that when X is spending time with her in Canberra, the Father accompany him to and from Canberra.
On balance I think the Father’s proposal is the more practical one. I think there is a real benefit for X in being able to travel up to Canberra with the Mother for his weekends with her as he will have that additional time on the flight with her. It also means the Father will not have to incur the cost of either accommodation in Canberra when X is not with him or of two flights each weekend.
However, it seems inequitable that the Mother should pay for three out of four flights each for weeks and as such it would be my expectation that the parties agree to equally share X’s travel costs.
I am in no doubt that the Mother is going to be devastated by this decision. Ms N expressed concern in her family report and in her viva voce evidence that the Mother is perhaps underestimating the distress she will feel because X is not in her primary care and how difficult emotionally it will be for her to be so distant from X. Ms N recommends the Mother seek counselling to assist her manage what will be a very difficult adjustment for her.
As noted in this judgment, X is going to find this change in his living arrangements very difficult. He will be assisted to manage these changes if his parents continue to do that which they have done so well since separation which is to work cooperatively and in a child focussed manner to assist X to manage this change in his circumstances and continue to support him and his development as they have always done.

213 I certify that the preceding two-hundred and twelve (212) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Bender.

Associate:
Dated: 19 January 2021

[2021] FCCA 46

19 January 2021

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Family Law

Contract Law

Legal Concepts

Jurisdiction

File number(s):	MLC 10638 of 2020
Judgment of:	JUDGE BENDER
Date of judgment:	19 January 2021
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW –Parenting –Relocation – Mother’s application to relocate to Canberra with the parties’ four year old son – where Mother maintains she will relocate to Canberra regardless of what orders are made – where the Father maintains he will stay in Melbourne regardless of what orders are made –where the Father proposes that it is in the child’s best interests for the Mother to remain living in Melbourne so that the shared care arrangement for the child can continue – where the Father seeks that should the Mother move to Canberra, the child remain living in Melbourne with him –the parties agree that should the Mother move to Canberra the child should spend time with the parent he is not living with on alternate weekends, alternating between Canberra and Melbourne. HELD – the Child remain living in Melbourne with the Father – the Child spend time with the Mother on alternate weekends, one weekend in Melbourne and the other in Canberra as well as holidays and special occasions.
Legislation:	Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60B(1), 60B(2), 60CA, 60CC(2), 60CC(3), 64, 65D
Cases cited:	Taylor v Barker [2007] 37 Fam LR 461 MRR v GR [2010] HCA 4 Heath v Hemming(No.2) [2011] FamCA 749 Tibb v Sheean [2018] FamCAFC 142 Fawkner & Kado [2020] FCCA 1535
Number of paragraphs:	214
Date of last submission/s:	16 December 2020
Date of hearing:	14 – 16 December 2020
Place:	Melbourne (via Web Conference on Microsoft Teams)

Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr Dixon SC
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Romer Maud Family Lawyers
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr Puckey SC
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Taussig Cherrie Fildes

MLC 10638 of 2020
BETWEEN:	MS HUDSON Applicant
AND:	MR DUNCAN Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	JUDGE BENDER
DATE OF ORDER:	19 JANUARY 2021