Jacks and Sands and Anor

[2018] FamCA 377

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

JACKS & SANDS AND ANOR [2018] FamCA 377

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – International relocation – Where the mother seeks to change the residence of the children from Australia to New Zealand – Where the first respondent father opposes the relocation – Where the second respondent father elected to not participate in the proceedings – Where the mother has facilitated time between the father and the children for over three years without Court orders – Where the mother may feel more emotionally secure in New Zealand and therapeutic assistance may help her achieve a more inclusive life for her and the children – Where the mother’s current living circumstances represents a risk to the welfare of the children – Ordered the mother may establish a residence for the children in New Zealand – Ordered the mother have sole parental responsibility for the children, the children shall live with the mother and spend time with the father in Australia during the Christmas school holiday period and the holiday period at the end of Term Two and in New Zealand for ten days each calendar year.

APPLICANT: Ms Jacks

FIRST RESPONDENT: Mr Sands

SECOND RESPONDENT:	Mr Squires
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:	Coast Law

FILE NUMBER: NCC 3175 of 2016

DATE DELIVERED: 28 May 2018

PLACE DELIVERED: Newcastle

PLACE HEARD: Newcastle

JUDGMENT OF: Cleary J

HEARING DATE: 1-2 May 2018

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Ms Ticehurst

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Legal Aid NSW B Town

FIRST RESPONDENT: Representing himself

SECOND RESPONDENT: No appearance

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Not applicable

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Coast Law

Orders

1. That the mother have sole parental responsibility for long term issues for the children:

   X Squires born … 2006;

   Y Sands born … 2010;

   Z Squires born … 2012.

2. That the mother and the First Respondent father have sole parental responsibility for day to day issues arising when the children or any of them are in the care of that parent.

3. That the mother:

   3.1Advise the First Respondent father in writing (which may include electronic writing such as email, text) of long term issues coming up for consideration and her proposal in that regard;

   3.2Invite the First Respondent father to forward any suggestion or counter proposal within a nominated period of time (which must be reasonable in the circumstances);

   3.3Consider any proposal put forward by the First Respondent father within the nominated period; and

   3.4Advise the First Respondent father in writing of her decision.

4. The mother shall provide a copy of these orders (after they been registered in New Zealand) to the principal of the school/schools which the children attend.

5. The mother shall authorise the school/s to the extent that is required to provide to the First Respondent father (at his cost if any) copies of all school reports and other documents relating to the progress and welfare of the children at school including applications for school photographs.

Residence

1. That the children shall live with the mother.

2. The mother may establish a residence for the children in New Zealand.

3. To that end the mother shall advise the First Respondent father in writing of her proposed departure date and contact details in New Zealand not less than 28 days prior to departure.

Time and communication

1. That the children spend time with the First Respondent father as follows:

   9.1In Australia:

   9.1.1Each year for a period of three weeks during the Christmas school holiday period;

   9.1.2In even numbered years from 21 December commencing 21 December 2018;

   9.1.3In odd numbered years from 28 December commencing 28 December 2019;

   9.1.4For a period of two weeks during the holiday period at the end of Term Two commencing on the first Saturday after the last day of Term 2 commencing in July 2019.

   9.2In New Zealand for one period in each calendar year of no more than 10 days provided that:

   9.2.1The father gives the mother as much notice as possible of the dates he intends to be present;

   9.2.2The father ensures that the children attend school if his period of time is in term time.

   9.3BY CONSENT in August 2018 for the purpose of a holiday in Asia with the children (approximately 22-31 August 2018).

2. The mother shall make every effort to provide accommodation for the First Respondent father and the children in New Zealand for the purposes of this period of time.

3. To that end the mother shall advise the First Respondent father in writing not less than 14 days prior to his date of arrival in New Zealand of the details of accommodation to be provided.

4. The parties shall share equally the cost of travel for the children to Australia with the mother to book and pay travel from New Zealand to Australia and the First Respondent father to refund to her within 7 days of receipt of payment his half share of the cost of travel for the children only.

5. That the First Respondent father have telephone communication with the children, as may be arranged between the parties from time to time, with such communication to include Skype, Viber or other video chat formats and occur not less than once per week on Saturday between 5.30 pm and 6.30 pm AEDT.

6. That the mother and First Respondent father keep each other with up to date details of the children’s schooling and any significant medical issues.

7. If the mother intends to relocate with the children to New Zealand:

   (a)The mother shall provide the Registrar of the Family Court of Australia at Newcastle with 21 days notice of her intention to relocate to New Zealand;

   (b)On notice of the mother’s intention to relocate the children to New Zealand the Registrar of the Family Court of Australia at Newcastle shall forthwith provide to the Secretary of Justice, the Ministry of Justice, New Zealand:

   (i)A certified copy of these orders;

   (ii)A statement that the orders are currently enforceable in Australia;

   (iii)A written statement tending to show that the mother and/or her children are present in New Zealand or are proceeding to New Zealand, or are about to proceed to New Zealand.

   (c)The Court notes that this order is intended to effect the process for registration of overseas parenting orders in New Zealand where either parent may seek to enforce, vary or discharge an order under the relevant law in New Zealand pursuant to s 81 and s 82 of the Care of Children Act 2004 New Zealand.

8. That the mother is authorised, without the consent of the First or Second Respondent fathers, and at her own expense, to take all steps and sign all documents necessary to:

   (a)Procure and renew valid passports for the children and each of them; and

   (b)Obtain such immigration status as may be necessary for the children and each of them to gain entry to New Zealand and remain living there.

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

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Jacks & Sands and Anor has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT NEWCASTLE

FILE NUMBER: NCC3175/2016

Ms Jacks

Applicant

And

Mr Sands

First Respondent

And

Mr Squires

Second Respondent

And

Independent Children’s Lawyer

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. These are competing parenting applications for orders in respect of three children:  a boy and two girls, aged 11, eight and five respectively at date of trial.

2. The applicant mother had a short lived relationship with Mr Squires, the second respondent, between approximately 2005 and 2007. One child of this relationship was born in 2006. He is the oldest subject child, X. The mother had a relationship on and off with Mr Sands, the first respondent, between 2008 and 2014. The two children of this relationship were Y, born in 2010 and Z, born in 2012.

3. The matter proceeded in an efficient manner and was concluded within the two days allocated. The mother was represented by a solicitor and counsel. The father represented himself. The interests of the children were represented by an independent children's lawyer who appeared as their advocate in this trial.

The Parties

The Mother

1. The applicant, Ms Jacks, is the mother of the children. She is aged 31. She was born in New Zealand but has lived in Australia since 2005. She arrived aged 18 with her mother and step‑father to live in this country. The mother is of Maori descent.

2. The mother lives in B Town, New South Wales. Her household consists of herself and the three children. The mother does not presently have a partner. She is not in paid employment but receives limited Commonwealth benefits and otherwise relies on financial support from her family. The mother suffers from depression and anxiety.

The Father

1. The first respondent, Mr Sands, is the biological father of the two younger children and the psychological father of the oldest child. The father is aged 34. He is Australian and is of Aboriginal descent. The father lives in C Town, New South Wales. He is a tradesman by occupation and works full‑time at Suburb D off Sydney. The father has recently (in 2017) ended a relationship. He does not presently have a partner.

Mr Squires

1. The second respondent, Mr Squires, is the biological father of the oldest child, X. He has spent very little time with the child; none at all since a brief visit in 2015. Mr Squires was not present for the trial. He elected not to participate in the proceedings at all. He has not filed any documents.

2. He advised the family consultant during interviews for a Children and Parents’ Issues Assessment (CAPIA) in March 2017 that he intended to participate in the proceedings insofar as to support Mr Sands’ proposal.[1]  He did not attend for interviews for the family report in November 2017. He spoke to the family consultant by phone and advised her that he did not intend to involve himself any further in these proceedings.

   [1] CAPIA dated 31/3/2017, par 51

3. The evidence suggests that Mr Squires now enjoys a good working relationship with the father, Mr Sands. Mr Squires appreciates the way the father has treated his son. He is interested to get to know his child but appears to be taking a long view. He does not provide financial support. Mr Squires is aged 31 and is of Aboriginal descent. There is no other evidence about his residence or personal circumstances before the Court.

Applications

The Mother

1. The mother wishes to change the residence of the children from Australia to New Zealand. That issue is the reason the parties have come to the Court. The mother proposes sole parental responsibility and residence with her. Upon relocation, she proposes that the children spend time with the father for:

   a)the first 10 days of each term holiday;

   b)half the Christmas school holiday period, and with two of the four holiday periods to be in New Zealand; and

   c)at other times as agreed.

2. There are other specific orders for communication, information and sharing of costs of travel proposed.

The Father

1. The father is opposed to the children going to live in New Zealand. Had the mother maintained her early stance[2] that she would move to New Zealand and leave the children with the father if the Court did not make an order for international change of residence, then the father proposed that the children live with him. In that event, the father proposed holiday time in similar terms to that of the mother.

   [2] CAPIA dated 31/3/2017, par 42

2. However, it is now clear that the mother does not intend to move to New Zealand unless the children can travel with her.

Documents

1. The documents relied on in respect of the application were as follows: 

The Applicant Mother

1. Minute of Order[3] in substitution for Initiating Application filed 23 November 2016 and subsequent Minute of Order in Case Outline;[4]

   [3] Exhibit 8

   [4] Exhibit 2, Annexure A

2. Affidavit of the mother Ms Jacks, filed 29 March 2018;

3. Parenting questionnaire by the mother filed 16 June 2017;

4. Affidavit of the maternal grandmother Ms E, filed 29 March 2018;

5. Affidavit of paternal great aunt, Ms F, filed 6 April 2018;

6. Affidavit of mother’s paternal cousin, Mr G, filed 6 April 201;

The First Respondent Father

1. Response to Initiating Application, filed 17 February 2017;

2. Affidavit of father Mr Sands, filed 28 March 2018;

3. Parenting questionnaire of father filed 2 May 2017;

Reports

1. Family Report dated 23 November 2017;

2. Children and Parents’ Issues Assessment (“CAPIA”) dated 31 March 2017;

3. Both report and assessment were prepared by Family Consultant, Ms H.

History of Relevant Events

1. The parties met in June 2008. The oldest child, X, was then aged about 18 months. Almost from the outset, X called the father “dad”.

2. The following year the parties and the child moved to J Town on the New South Wales North Coast in order to live with the father’s family there and also to avoid Mr Squires.

3. The second subject child, Y, was born in J Town early in 2010. Four months later, the parties moved in to live with the mother’s family.

4. In June 2010, the parties obtained for the first time their own independent rental accommodation. Late in 2012, the third subject child was born. In early 2013, the parties and the three children moved to K Town, where the mother and children continue to live.

5. In October 2014, after a two year period of separations and reconciliations, the relationship ended. The children were then aged approximately eight, four and a half, and two. The mother and children remained in the property. The father was in a poor financial position and lived in his car until he could establish himself financially.

6. To the credit of both parties, they ensured that the father saw the children regularly after separation. He came to see them at the home. Once the father was able to rent his own accommodation, the children began spending time with him each alternate weekend. That pattern has been maintained. There was some disruption when the father formed a relationship in 2016 with Ms L whose child, a boy now aged about seven, was a member of the household. That relationship ended in the last quarter of 2017.

7. By late 2015, and probably earlier, the mother formed the intention to move back to live in New Zealand. Quite properly, she asked for the consent of the father. He initially agreed and seriously considered moving to live there too. Later, his attitude and circumstances changed. He withdrew his consent and stepped back from the thought of moving to New Zealand. On 23 November 2016, the mother made her application to this Court to change the residence of the children to New Zealand.

The Law

Parental Responsibility

1. The father during the course of the trial agreed to sole parental responsibility for the mother of the children if there was a relocation to New Zealand. The father stated that he trusts the mother to make good decisions about them.

2. In the event that the children remain living in Australia, it is appropriate that they equally share parental responsibility and both parties agree about that. In any event, each should have day‑to‑day parental responsibility when the children are in the respective care of each.

Views of the Children

1. All three children were observed and interviewed for the family report in November 2017. Their views and ages at the time of interview follow:

   a)X, aged 11: the child spoke positively about his mother, maternal grandmother and father. He was feeling a bit unhappy about events surrounding his father’s recent separation from Ms L feeling that he had been (unfairly) blamed for it. However, he was looking forward to spending time with the father. He stated that he would like to be able to go and live in New Zealand and connect with his mother’s family. He was assessed by the family consultant to be an outgoing child with a happy nature that would ensure new friendships if he relocated.

   b)Y, aged almost eight: the child expressed her love for both parents and the enjoyment of spending time with each of them. She was “well aware” of the reason for her attendance on the family consultant:  “Y said that she would like to go and live in New Zealand and thought that her mother would be quite upset if they weren’t allowed to go”.[5]  She was free with her view that she would miss her father and grandparents but expected to speak to them often and see them during school holidays.

   c)Z, aged five:  Z was observed to be “starting to align with the mother in regard to the relocation issue”. As was the case with her sister, Z knew why she was being interviewed. When offered time with her father in the childcare room, she declined. She explained that her mother was angry with her father because “he wants to fight with mum because she wants to take me to New Zealand and he says no”.[6]  After the family consultant explained that the adults would sort that out and that she need not worry about it, Z was quite happy to see her father and enjoyed her time with him. Z would have no concept of New Zealand as a country or a place to live. She was taking responsibility to some extent for her mother’s happiness in her statements.

   [5] Family Report dated 23/11/2017 par 72

   [6] Family Report dated 23/11/2017, par 79

Relationships with Parents and Others

1. The independent children's lawyer rightly observed that the subject children are fortunate with a number of people who love them. First, they are close as a group of siblings. They love each of their parents and are secure in those relationships. They have a very close relationship with their maternal grandmother whom they see almost every day. They know and are probably close to their maternal grandfather. They know their paternal grandparents who live in Queensland and Asia respectively, but have not yet spent a great deal of time with them. The children are also aware of their maternal family in New Zealand living in the small town where they too would live.

2. X knows that Mr Squires is his father but understands the respondent father to be his “true father”.[7]  He has not seen Mr Squires for three years. The mother facilitated the brief visit which did take place in 2015, despite her own fears and disappointment with Mr Squires’ attitude to parenting. Her preference is that X spend no time with him by order of the Court. The father takes the view, in the absence of a prohibitive order, that he would be led by X’s wishes and would assist him to contact Mr Squires if he wished.

   [7] CAPIA dated 31/3/2017, par 64 

Taking the Opportunity to Participate in Parenting Decisions

1. The mother has made the majority of decisions for the children. She has at times consulted the father in advance and at other times let him know what she has already decided. The father would have liked to participate more in the education of the children. He was met with limited assistance at the children’s school such that if he specifically asked for school reports, he would be given the most recent one but they were not routinely forwarded to him. He was told more than once to “download the app to read the school newsletter”.

2. Both parents independently have wished for the children to engage in activities. X is interested in self‑defence. The two girls, especially Y, are keen on gymnastics or dancing. The mother felt held back by lack of funds. The father was reluctant to ask the mother directly after Y raised the topic with him, although he sent a message through Y that he was agreeable and willing to pay.

1. I have concluded that the parties did not raise any issue with the other more than once, or press for anything, in order to avoid conflict between them. They did not want interpersonal hostility. They were maintaining time and communication by goodwill and neither wanted the arrangements to break down. The father asked for more time and the mother declined. The mother asked for more money and at that time the father declined. Both accepted that there should be no more requests.

Maintaining the Children

1. The father has paid child support. After separation, the parties had a private agreement for him to pay $100 per week. He also paid for some uniforms and medicines. There was a difficult period where the father was in arrears but he caught up when he could and it is conceded that there are no current arrears. In 2016, the mother applied for a child support assessment which was and presently is $52 per month, significantly less than she had received for more than a year after separation.

2. The father has now secured permanent employment with a salary of approximately $80,000 per annum. His oral evidence was that after he files his next tax return, the child support assessment will rise to $911 per month. However, that assessment has not yet been made. That would be an enormous and potentially life changing increase for the mother and children. The father has offered to pay $500 per month if the mother would enter into a private agreement. The mother declined, fearful that it was contingent on her remaining in Australia. I do not consider that it was; rather, the father was proposing that amount for the period until the mother left Australia if she did.

Effect of Change of Circumstances

1. The children will be very much affected by the move to New Zealand. They will experience many losses:

   a)The ability to spend alternate weekends and special occasions with the father.

   b)The day‑to‑day contact with their maternal grandmother.

   c)Their friends and teachers in their current school and local community.

2. They may also experience gains:

   a)A connection with their New Zealand culture and the Maori culture of their mother.

   b)Close relationships with the paternal side of the maternal family living in and around M Town New Zealand.

   c)The ability to participate in extracurricular activities at school and in the local community.

3. If the prediction of the mother is accurate, they may also experience a less fearful and anxious mother. The mother expects to do paid work, obtain a driver’s licence and move freely around in the local area of M Town where they would live.

Practical Difficulty and Expense

1. This is very much a live and significant issue. The cost of travel is significant even with the helpful assistance of the maternal extended family in New Zealand who can offer discount vouchers for international travel. A complicating factor is that the father will probably move to Perth if the children move to live in New Zealand. The company he works for in Sydney, in the last fortnight prior to trial, notified him of work in Perth for which he is qualified and is interested to take up. He would not do so if the children remain living on the NSW Coast. His priority is to maintain the current alternate weekend arrangements.

2. A disadvantage of that move would be more expensive travel from Perth to M Town, New Zealand to Perth. An advantage is that the father would be living closer to his own father who lives in Asia. I accept that the paternal grandfather would be willing to travel to Australia to be with the children during holiday periods when they were spending time with the father but the father was working for part or even all of that time.

Capacity of the Parents

1. On her own evidence, the capacity of the mother to meet the needs of the children is impaired. Her capacity as a parent is adequate but could be much more. In her affidavit, the mother asserts that she is unable to work “due to suffering from bouts of severe anxiety and depression”.[8]  She also referred to trying many medications, none of which have reduced her symptoms.

   [8] Affidavit of the mother filed 29/3/2018, pars 57-60

2. The symptoms are disabling. The mother feels she is unable to leave the house alone. She goes shopping with her mother or her mother shops for her. She does not have a driver’s licence and presently feels unable to go through the process of obtaining one. She did drive, although unlicensed, in New Zealand. It is the number of cars on the road which deters her. Accordingly, she walks the children to the bus stop to travel to school and waits for them in the afternoon to walk them home.

3. In her oral evidence, the mother spoke of her interest in becoming a teacher’s aide. She feels most comfortable around children. She would be required to undertake a 10 week course. The school would cover the course fees. The mother has felt unable to undertake the course.

4. Overall, the mother described her life as feeling “scared all the time”. The mother has attended her GP who has in the past prescribed medication which she felt did not ameliorate her symptoms of anxiety and fear. She asserts that she has attended a counsellor but not in recent months.

5. The mother has been a loving and effective parent. The family consultant described the children in glowing terms:

   The children’s behaviour during their time at the registry was exemplary. They have excellent manners and lovely personalities. They were a delight to interview.[9] 

   [9] Family Report dated 23/11/2017, par 85

6. Released from financial worries in a setting where she felt relaxed and supported, the mother may be capable of meeting the children’s needs, to participate in social life and community activities at a more satisfying level both for her and the children. The family consultant expressed the view that the mother is affected by childhood trauma which has gone unaddressed, leaving her with dysfunctional personality traits. The family consultant explained that her reading of material produced in response to subpoena had revealed an inappropriate attempt by a therapist to reduce the mother’s anxiety by focusing on its symptoms without addressing their cause.

7. There was no medical evidence tendered. The matter proceeded on the basis that the mother does suffer from anxiety and depression as an agreed fact. Both parties believe and accept that to be the case. There may be other or broader explanations.

8. The father has the capacity to meet the needs of the children including their educational and emotional needs. He respects and supports their relationship with the mother. In the case of X, he is sensitive to the child’s thoughts and feelings about his biological father, Mr Squires. Financially, the father has relished finding a permanent job which provides stability for him and will permit him to properly provide for the children. If he did not fully understand before the trial the extent of the mother’s severely restricted financial circumstances, he certainly did by the end of it. He wishes for the children to do and to have whatever is possible for them to the limits of the capacity of both parents.

Maturity, Sex, Lifestyle and Background

1. The three children are X, a boy aged 11 years in Year 6, his last year of primary school. He is showing the early signs of adolescence. He has shown “a bit of attitude”, to use the words of the mother, to his mother recently. He does well academically and socially and is recorded by his school as a happy and cheerful student. He has good friendships.

2. Y is in Year 3. She does well socially and academically. She is described by her school as a conscientious student with an excellent attitude to learning. She makes friends easily and keeps them.

3. Z is in kindergarten, her first year of school. Outgoing and chatty, she was able to tell the family consultant in November 2017 that she was enjoying preparation for school, having attended her orientation days. The family consultant assessed her as “a very bright child”.

Attitude to Parenting

1. Both parties take their role seriously. They are devoted and responsible parents.

Aboriginality

1. The children have a rich cultural heritage. They are Australian citizens and could easily become New Zealand citizens by descent, as well. They have Maori heritage through their mother which they are aware of but are yet to explore. They are, all three, Aboriginal children through their respective fathers (Mr Squires is also Aboriginal). X and Y have been happily involved in Aboriginal cultural activities at school. They will be free to expand their involvement in culture and connection to country as they grow up.

Family Violence and Family Violence Orders

1. There was a family violence order in place for the protection of the mother from Mr Squires shortly after their separation in January 2008. The apprehended violence order was in place for two years. The mother referred in her affidavit to a violent threat made by Mr Squires later in 2008 which was “to douse her in petrol and set her alight”. Mr Squires allegedly pushed her over and she fell on X. Mr Squires was, at that time, trying to force his way into her house. Police attended and arrested him. After the mother began her relationship with the father, they moved away partly to avoid the unwanted intrusion of Mr Squires into the mother’s life.

The Order Least Likely to Lead to Further Litigation

1. The mother has wanted to return to live in New Zealand at least since her separation from the father. She has chosen not to apply for permanent residence or citizenship during the 13 years she has lived in Australia. As a result, she is not eligible for Centrelink benefits for single parents. She does receive family tax benefits and that is her income, $800 per fortnight. Even that is reduced by small sums required to be repaid in respect of Centrelink loans she has taken out to buy particular items for the children such as school uniforms and equipment.

2. The mother’s income is supplemented by cash and food provided by her mother. Her father gives her $50 per week and pays for additional items on request. The mother pays $300 per week in rent. The maternal grandmother is not in a comfortable financial position herself and undertakes extra paid work in order to assist the support of her daughter and grandchildren. The mother, I accept, feels the strain of dependence on her parents. She wishes to become self‑sufficient and she wishes to feel less fearful. She believes that she will be able to do so if she lives in M Town with her extended family. More than anything, she wants to raise the children in the best possible way she can in New Zealand.

3. There is a benefit to the children if the mother can achieve all that she hopes. However if the mother became unable or unwilling to comply with the orders for time between the children and their father that would be detrimental to them. Non-compliance would likely see a revisiting of the issue of residence on the application of the father.

Conclusion

1. There are risks associated with the children going to live in New Zealand. The mother may not flourish in the way she anticipates. She may not ensure that time between the children and the father takes place in accordance with the orders she proposes. Associated with that risk is her ability to have sufficient funds to pay for the trips she has proposed. However, the mother has facilitated time for three and a half years without Court orders, a fact which in my view deserves considerable weight. Quite properly, the proposal of the mother includes registration of the orders made here in New Zealand so that they are enforceable.

2. I also take into account the view of the family consultant that if the mother feels more emotionally secure and at ease in New Zealand, she may pursue the therapeutic assistance which will help her to achieve a more inclusive life for herself and the children.

3. There is some risk that the mother will, after the first excitement of getting her wish, become emotionally isolated in New Zealand to the detriment of the children, but in all of the circumstances, I do not consider these risks rise to the level of unacceptable risk.

4. I accept the submission made on behalf of both the mother and the independent children's lawyer that for the mother to continue as she is in what was described as “a poverty trap” also represents a considerable risk to the welfare of the children growing up.

5. Accordingly, taking all of those matters into account, I have concluded that the mother should be able to move to New Zealand with the children and orders facilitating that relocation are made accordingly.

I certify that the preceding seventy (70) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cleary delivered on 28 May 2018.

Associate: 

Date:  28 May 2018