Kerson & Blake (No. 2)

Case [2020] FamCA 892

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Kerson & Blake (No. 2) [2020] FamCA 892

File number(s): CAC 1154 of 2017
Judgment of: BAUMANN J
Date of judgment: 13 November 2020
Catchwords: CHILDREN – where the children live with the father in Australia – where it is in the best interests of the children to spend time with the mother in the United States of America – where current COVID-19 travel restrictions are considered – orders made for the children to spend time with the mother in the United States of America during school holiday periods
Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 , s 60CC
Cases cited:

Kerson & Blake [2020] FamCA 674

Sampson & Hartnett (No 10) (2007) 38 Fam LR 315
Number of paragraphs: 30
Date of hearing: 2 October 2020
Place: Brisbane
Solicitor for the First Applicant: Self-represented
Solicitor for the First Respondent: Ms A Prest

ORDERS

CAC 1154 of 2017
BETWEEN:

MS KERSON

Applicant
AND:

MR BLAKE

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

BAUMANN J

DATE OF ORDER:

13 NOVEMBER 2020

THE COURT NOTING:

A.That on 20 August 2020 the Court ordered on a final basis:

(a)that the children, B born … 2006 and C born … 2012 (“the children”) live with the father in Australia; and

(b)that the parents have equal shared parental responsibility for the children,

and required further evidence and submissions as to time with the mother and other orders.

THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS ON A FINAL BASIS:

1.That in facilitating the Orders below whilst COVID-19 travel restrictions and personal conduct requirements in both Australia and the United States of America (“USA”) are in force, the parents shall at all times use their best endeavours to comply with all requirements of law that apply to the children’s travel under these Orders.

2.That, further, in compliance with the obligations identified in Order 1, the parents shall, in a timely manner, make any necessary applications for exemptions or approvals required to permit, if possible, travel under these Orders for the children to occur.

3.That unless otherwise agreed in writing between the parents, the children shall spend time with the mother as follows:

End of term four school holidays 2020

(a)During the end of year Australian Capital Territory (“ACT”) school holidays 2020, with the mother in the USA commencing with travel on or about 20 December 2020 with return to Australia, on or about 17 January 2021 on the following conditions:

(i)Noting that the Department of Home Affairs has granted the children permission to travel during this period, the children shall not be permitted to leave the Commonwealth of Australia UNTIL a confirmed return and paid flight from City L or City M to Sydney is available;

(ii)The parents shall share equally in the total costs of flights from Sydney to the USA and USA to Sydney, with the father to initially pay for and book the flight from Sydney to City L/City M and the mother to initially pay for and book the flight from City L/City M to Sydney;

(iii)Not…

Continue reading Kerson & Blake (No. 2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Kerson & Blake (No. 2) [2020] FamCA 892
Case
[2020] FamCA 892
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case concerned an application by Ms Kerson (the applicant mother) and Mr Blake (the respondent father) regarding parenting orders for their two children, B and C. The court had previously ordered that the children live with the father in Australia and that the parents share equal parental responsibility. The present proceedings concerned further orders regarding the children spending time with the mother, who resides in the United States of America, and other related matters.

The primary legal issues before the court were: (1) whether it was in the children's best interests to spend time with their mother in the USA, considering current COVID-19 travel restrictions and the associated logistical and financial challenges; (2) the specific arrangements for such time, including the duration, frequency, and travel logistics; and (3) the terms of ongoing communication between the children and both parents, as well as provisions for the sharing of information and parental responsibilities.

Justice Baumann considered the evidence regarding the children's best interests, the practicalities of international travel during the pandemic, and the financial implications for both parents. The court noted that the Department of Home Affairs had granted an exemption for the children to travel to the USA on compassionate and compelling grounds. The court reasoned that it was in the children's best interests to spend time with their mother, despite the travel complexities. The court applied principles of children's best interests and the need for practical, enforceable orders, taking into account the specific circumstances of international travel restrictions.

The court made final orders for the children to spend time with the mother in the USA during school holiday periods, commencing with the end of term four holidays in 2020. These orders detailed specific travel arrangements, including flight bookings, cost-sharing, and conditions related to potential quarantine requirements. The orders also established a framework for future annual time with the mother in the USA, as well as provisions for the mother to spend time with the children in Australia. Furthermore, the court made detailed orders regarding electronic communication between the parents and children, the holding of passports, the provision of health and educational information, and various restraints on parental conduct.

Orders

Orders of the court

CAC 1154 of 2017

BETWEEN:

MS KERSON

Applicant

AND:

MR BLAKE

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

BAUMANN J

DATE OF ORDER:

13 NOVEMBER 2020

THE COURT NOTING:

A. That on 20 August 2020 the Court ordered on a final basis:

(a) that the children, B born … 2006 and C born … 2012 (“the children”) live with the father in Australia; and

(b) that the parents have equal shared parental responsibility for the children,

and required further evidence and submissions as to time with the mother and other orders.

THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS ON A FINAL BASIS:

1. That in facilitating the Orders below whilst COVID-19 travel restrictions and personal conduct requirements in both Australia and the United States of America (“USA”) are in force, the parents shall at all times use their best endeavours to comply with all requirements of law that apply to the children’s travel under these Orders.

2. That, further, in compliance with the obligations identified in Order 1, the parents shall, in a timely manner, make any necessary applications for exemptions or approvals required to permit, if possible, travel under these Orders for the children to occur.

3. That unless otherwise agreed in writing between the parents, the children shall spend time with the mother as follows:

End of term four school holidays 2020

(a) During the end of year Australian Capital Territory (“ACT”) school holidays 2020, with the mother in the USA commencing with travel on or about 20 December 2020 with return to Australia, on or about 17 January 2021 on the following conditions:

(i) Noting that the Department of Home Affairs has granted the children permission to travel during this period, the children shall not be permitted to leave the Commonwealth of Australia UNTIL a confirmed return and paid flight from City L or City M to Sydney is available;

(ii) The parents shall share equally in the total costs of flights from Sydney to the USA and USA to Sydney, with the father to initially pay for and book the flight from Sydney to City L/City M and the mother to initially pay for and book the flight from City L/City M to Sydney;

(iii) Not less than seven (7) days prior to departure from Australia the parents shall provide, in writing, to the other parent details of the confirmation from the airline of the itinerary and confirmation of payment of the fare. Any payment adjusting the cost of travel between the parents shall be made on or before the date of departure from Australia;

(iv) The children shall fly unaccompanied directly between Sydney and City L or City M and return without any stop-over, unless otherwise agreed;

(v) If a parent elects to accompany the children, they shall be solely responsible for the costs of their travel;

(vi) If during this visit the mother elects for the children to spend time out of City D, then the mother shall at all times accompany the children interstate (by whatever form of transport she elects to use) and be substantially present at all times when the children are spending time out of City D; and

(vii) If, upon return to Australia, the children and an accompanying adult are required to undertake hotel quarantine, then the father shall initially pay the costs of such quarantine, with the mother to reimburse the father for 50% of the costs within one (1) month of demand being made by the father.

Thereafter contact with the mother in the USA

(b) In each calendar year thereafter the children shall spend time with the mother in the USA as follows:

(i) Up to three (3) weeks (inclusive of travel time) which includes the whole of the end of term two (2) ACT school holiday period and up to four (4) weeks (inclusive of travel time) during the end of term four (4) ACT school holidays;

(ii) The children shall fly unaccompanied on the same basis as set out at Orders 3(a)(ii), (iii), (iv) and (v);

(iii) The mother shall advise the father by 28 February each year the dates that she elects to spend time with the children in the USA for that calendar year under these Orders, noting that the children’s school calendar will be available by then. When the mother elects to spend three (3) weeks with the children that incorporates the end of term two (2) school holidays, the mother’s elected dates must indicate whether time before or after that scheduled school holiday period is sought;

(iv) In respect of the end of term four (4) school holidays, commencing December 2021 and each odd numbered year thereafter, the period of four (4) weeks (inclusive of travel) the children are to spend with the mother shall not commence before 27 December 2021 unless otherwise agreed in writing;

(v) In respect of the end of term four (4) school holidays, commencing December 2022 and each even numbered year thereafter, the period of four (4) weeks (inclusive of travel) the children are to spend with the mother shall not commence on or before the first Sunday after the end of term unless otherwise agreed in writing; and

(vi) The intent of Orders 3(b)(iv) and (v) is that the children spend at least Christmas Day with the father in odd numbered years and with the mother in even numbered years.

Physical time between the children and the mother in Australia

4. That if the mother elects to travel to Australia to spend time with the children in Australia, the children will spend time with the mother as follows and on the following conditions:

(a) The mother shall give to the father not less than ninety (90) days’ written notice of her intention to exercise time with the children in Australia;

(b) Such notice must include details of:

(i) Period of visit including proposed start and finish dates; and

(ii) Likely address where the mother will be staying in the ACT (if the time includes any school term time).

(c) Subject to any agreement in writing between the parents, the mother may elect up to two (2) periods to visit the children in Australia each calendar year – with such periods not exceeding two (2) weeks and not to include more than half of the end of term one (1) or three (3) ACT school holiday periods;

(d) The mother shall be solely responsible for all the travel and accommodation costs incurred for such visitation in Australia; and

(e) If a period of physical contact in Australia includes school days, then the mother shall ensure the children attend school and maintain extra-curricular activities (including those on weekends), which the children are otherwise engaged in at the time.

Electronic communication

5. That the children shall communicate with the mother via Skype, FaceTime, or other electronic communication on no less than three (3) occasions per week, as agreed, but failing agreement:

(a) Saturday at 9.30am (Canberra time) or half an hour after the mother finishes work on Friday (USA time) whichever is earlier;

(b) Monday at 7.30am (Canberra time); and

(c) Thursday at 7.30am (Canberra time),

but in the event the children are travelling on a weekend, then the communication provided for by Order 5(a) above then the father shall advise the mother in writing no less than forty eight (48) hours prior to the time she would otherwise ordinarily communicate with the children of their intended travel and the communication provided by Order 5(a) above will be suspended for that weekend but the father will make a reasonable effort to facilitate that communication notwithstanding its suspension.

6. That for the purposes of Order 5 above, the father will initiate the Skype, FaceTime or other electronic communication and will ensure the children are available for the call.

7. That when the children are in the USA with the mother for school holidays under this Order, the mother shall facilitate the children communicating with the father via Skype, FaceTime, or other electronic communication on no less than three (3) occasions per week.

8. That other than in circumstances of emergency, the parent with whom the children are living will facilitate the children having Skype, telephone, or other electronic communication with the other parent at the request of the children (or either of them) provided such request is between 8.00am and 9.00pm and is reasonably practicable at the time of the request.

9. That both parents are to ensure that the children have access to working computers or tablets to enable the communication provisions of these Orders to be complied with, with those devices:

(a) to be set up with relevant communication software including Skype or FaceTime, hangouts and email; and

(b) to have appropriate parental control devices installed; and

(c) to be logged into the child’s personal Skype, Facetime or other account and/or software (not the parent’s account) for their communication with the other parent.

10. That pursuant to s 65Y(2) of the Family Law Act 1975, the parents are permitted to take the children to a place outside Australia in accordance with these Orders.

11. That the parents can only travel to a non-Hague Convention country with the written permission of the other parent.

12. That the parents do all acts and things and sign all documents necessary to ensure both children have current passports at all times.

13. That the children’s passports be held by the father except when the children are travelling when they shall remain with the children for the period of overseas travel.

Provision of information

14. That each parent will notify the other parent within forty eight (48) hours of any change of:

(a) residential address,

(b) person living in their residential address; and

(c) email, telephone, or mobile telephone number.

15. That each parent will notify the other parent by telephone, if an emergency, or otherwise, via text message or email message of all matters concerning the health of the children as soon as practicable, being:

(a) any illness, accident or injury suffered by the children, including any follow up treatment;

(b) any significant medical, psychological or dental treatment provided to the children; and

(c) any medications or supplements the children are to routinely take while in either parent’s care, including particulars of dosage, and details of the health practitioner that prescribed the mediation and if there was no prescription by a health practitioner, then written communication from the parent who decided to administer the medication as to why the medication was required.

16. That by this Order, all schools, medical, psychological or dental practitioners and organisers of extra-curricular activities are hereby authorised to discuss all matters relating to the children with both parties and to release all information concerning the children to both parents as may be requested by either of them from time to time.

17. That for as long as C is determined to have asthma by an independent medical professional, that:

(a) the parents are responsible for ensuring that C has an asthma management plan in place that is reviewed at least yearly by an independent medical professional; and

(b) that any person who is caring for the children in the absence of the other parent is provided with a copy of C’s current asthma management plan and is made acquainted with his asthma issues and the appropriate responses should an asthma-related issue occur.

18. That any person who is caring for the children in the absence of the other parent is provided with any other medical or health related information relevant to the children at that time.

19. That the parents are to advise any educational or child care facility used for the children of any allergy or other relevant medical information, prior to the children attending at any such facility.

Restraints

20. That both parents be and are restrained from:

(a) saying unkind or unpleasant things to or about the other parent, their family or household, nor permit or encourage others to do so;

(b) communicating with each other unless that communication is necessary to facilitate the implementation of these Orders;

(c) causing anyone other than themselves or their partner from collecting the children after school other than when the school is informed beforehand in writing (noting that this notification is a requirement imposed by the school); and/or

(d) implementing dietary, food or supplement regimes or restrictions for the children that are not at the recommendation of a medical provider or previously discussed with a medical provider.

21. That the parents shall have liberty to apply in respect of the enforcement or interpretation of these Orders.

22. That otherwise all outstanding applications and costs, save the father’s Application for costs of the adjourned final hearing (which is to be dealt with by submissions in accordance with the Orders made 2 October 2020), are dismissed.

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

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

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Thereafter on 2 October 2020, the unrepresented mother and Ms Prest, solicitor for the father appeared before me by Microsoft Teams. Some USA based members of the mother’s family were permitted to view the proceedings on 2 October 2020, at the request of the mother, who also had use of a “Mackenzie friend” to support her.THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE The father’s Affidavit filed 25 September 2020 was subject, in part, to a reply Affidavit of the mother filed at 8.18am on 2 October 2020. I heard further oral submissions. Neither party was cross-examined. Arising from that evidence and submissions, I record the following matters:(a)The mother disagreed with the father about the ability for the children to leave Australia at this time, whilst acknowledging that an application for an exemption to travel would need to be made;(b)A direction was made for the father to seek the exemption to travel, initially for some of the next school holidays at the end of the Australian Capital Territory (“ACT”) term four. Subsequently, the father did make the required application and, on 14 October 2020 a delegate of the Department of Home Affairs/Australian Border Force, by email, advised the father that his request for an exemption from travel restrictions for B and C had been granted and “authorised” travel on “compassionate and compelling” grounds. The email from the Department has been marked as Exhibit 16 in these proceedings;(c)There is a dispute between the parties as to the costs and availability of return flights. To a large extent, before the exemption had been granted, the dates of flights and their costs was somewhat speculative. No probative evidence was offered to the Court, although the parties say their enquiries reveal:(i)The mother asserts that Delta Air Lines have flights for unaccompanied minors, at an estimated fee of $1,500 return, but she says “whatever it costs – it costs”. The mother’s belief is that getting flights is not a difficulty; whilst(ii)The father says costs of return flights, on his enquiries, could be as much as AUD$13,000 to AUD$20,000 in total. Furthermore, he says even if there are bookings for a flight from the USA to Australia, there is a chance that passengers can be “bumped” to business class to retain the flights at significantly greater cost;(d)The mother gave evidence that no quarantining requirements currently exist for persons disembarking from Australia and arriving in, for example, City L. The father did not contend otherwise. Currently, travel within the USA is not restricted however the father submits, to reduce the chances of the children contracting the virus, if the children do travel to the USA, then he seeks an order that the children be restricted to remain in City D;(e)Unaccompanied minors returning to Australia may seek an exemption from the 14 day hotel quarantine requirement and, it seems, that subject to obtaining an exemption from ACT authorities, self-isolating in their own home would be an option. Travelling from Sydney airport to the children’s home in the ACT by car appears to be an available option, again subject to any necessary government exemptions being obtained;(f)If the children do not attract an exemption from quarantine, upon entering Australia they and the father would need to enter into hotel quarantine for 14 days, during which testing obligations also are imposed. Also the costs of such hotel quarantine, in the region of $4,000, would need to be met by the father initially;(g)The parents disagree when, at least, the holiday travel for the upcoming end of term four holidays should occur. The Court accepts the children attend public schools and the ACT school holidays commence on Saturday, 19 December 2020 and conclude on Sunday, 31 January 2021. Accordingly, unless orders permit return travel to cover some of term one 2021, the children should be back in Australia by Sunday, 17 January 2021, to allow for quarantine or self-isolation. I speculate that because other children may be seeking to return to Australia around the same time, flights may be difficult to secure or be more expensive;(h)The father seeks orders such that the children spend time with him in Australia from midday on Christmas Eve until 10.00am Boxing Day. The mother disagrees on a number of bases, but at least because the children not leaving Australia until 26/27 December 2020 would reduce the time the children have available to spend with her in the USA;(i)The father’s primary proposals (which were produced on 25 September 2020), set out in Appendix One to these Reasons, effectively seeks orders that until such time as Australian borders re-open to the USA and parties returning to Australia from the USA do not have to quarantine “the children shall not travel to the United States of America”. His Affidavit asserts (at paragraph 4) that whilst he does “consider it is in the children’s best interests to spend time with their mother, I do not consider it to be in their best interests or practical at this time or in the foreseeable future for the children to travel to the United States of America to spend time with her.”(j)The mother, in reply, deals with the risks the father identifies but concludes that whilst “I will do whatever it takes to see my children and if I am ordered to Australia, I will have no choice but to go, but, objectively it does seem like the least practical arrangement and the most expensive option”. In respect of practicalities, the mother (at paragraph 11) says that if she came to Australia she would be required to quarantine for 14 days (when she could not physically interact with the children), and apart from additional costs of car hire, accommodation and the like, she is unable to “extend my leave from my USA work for more than 3 – 4 weeks maximum”. The Court would not make any coercive order compelling the mother in this case to travel to Australia (see Sampson & Hartnett (No 10) (2007) 38 Fam LR 315). To do so would be unreasonable. Furthermore, the mother should not have to contemplate giving up her well paid employment so that she can spend more time with the children – although she said she would do so, such is the level of dire desperation she has reached in not having meaningful contact with the children.

Decision

Reasons for decision

The orders which appear at the commencement of these Reasons are in the children’s best interests and, by reference to other collateral issues raised in the proposals of the parties at the conclusion of the trial, I find:(a)the children are contacted by their mother nearly every morning. I do not regard it as in the children’s best interests to prescribe daily time – although the father does not seek to restrict time. Sensibly, in my view, whilst time by Skype or other electronic means might take place outside of prescribed time, I accept the father’s proposal at paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the father’s proposed orders at the time of the trial is appropriate. The Family Consultant did not support prescribed daily interactions. I agree that has the likelihood of being intrusive into the routines in the father’s home;(b)at paragraph 114 of my earlier Reasons, I indicated that these further Reasons would deal with a range of collateral issues (including those set out in the mother’s proposed orders numbered 20 to 36.5). I do so in an abbreviated form without trying to descend into the drafting style of the mother but rather to concentrate on the issues the mother seeks to cover, but generally in a less prescriptive form;(c)I regard proposed orders 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the father’s proposed orders at the time of the trial to be appropriate (in many ways reflecting earlier Orders of Gill J made 4 May 2018;(d)the children’s passports should be held by the father, with of course the passport travelling with the children, when they are travelling;(e)I incorporate proposed orders 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and the restraints at proposed order 21 of the father’s proposed orders sought at the trial, with various amendments and additions as now set out arising from the mother’s proposed orders presented for the trial. I again accept that the father’s orders broadly mirror the terms of Orders made by Gill J, but in adopting that language I do so in the exercise of my independent discretion and not merely adopting the form of orders that were set aside by the Full Court, noting that many of the Orders appeared, on the evidence before me, to have met the needs of the children;(f)turning then to the mother’s additional and varied orders, I find that:(i)I regard the form of order proposed by the father as to communication is preferable to the highly prescriptive orders sought by the mother at paragraphs 20 to 27. Whilst not seeking to criticise the mother’s drafting, it involves statements of principle which confuse the meaning of an enforceable order. In any event, as the children have demonstrated, they are more than capable of ensuring communication with their mother occurs – although I suspect as they get older – not as frequent as the mother seeks. Furthermore, it is not appropriate to incorporate orders in respect of third parties (e.g. grandparents), who are not parties to these proceedings;(ii)the mother’s proposed order 28 is not necessary, and the simple provisions of equal shared parental responsibility means, absent any other orders, that upon the death of a parent, the other parent assumes total parental authority;(iii)proposed order 30 again seeks to impose some obligations for a parent, when the children are in their care, to “arrange visitation with their own family/friends/community, independent of the other parent’s travel/visitation arrangements such that the children do not suffer unduly”. Whilst the Court understands the mother’s intent, when the children are in the care of a parent, it is appropriate that parent have flexibility and authority to decide who they might arrange to visit. Similarly, I do not regard it as appropriate to restrict who “drives” the children in cars. That is a matter best left to the parent caring for the children at that time. Similar restrictions on the identification of accommodation are not, in this case, on the evidence, appropriate;(iv)the mother’s proposes (see order 31) the creation of a travel fund, from which, after equal deposits from each parent, airfares for the children would be paid. However, the terms of the proposed orders contained a number of conditions, including:A.each parent shall contribute USD$5,000 per annum into the fund in two instalments if necessary;B.tickets are to be purchased “in a timely fashion with financial prudence in mind but also with the best interest of the children as a priority – i.e. avoiding multi-leg trips and overly long layovers…”C.the children should not travel unaccompanied, with this restriction to be “revisited” yearly “as the children continue to mature and grow in confidence”;D.the fund shall cover the cost of obtaining health/travel insurance for the children;E.where the father’s travel costs to the USA are covered by his employer the mother may request up to half the cost of her own travel from the fund;F.in the case of a “true emergency… either party may seek to access assistance from the fund” with a payment requiring the consent of both parents;G.each family member have a frequent flyer account with every airline that flies to/from Australia with reward “miles” being used or transferred “by either parent to facilitate ticketing for international travel for the children”. Furthermore, the mother proposed (order 31.2.1) that the father “donate” his miles earned on any travel he has not personally funded;H.as an alternate position, the mother at 31.3.4 effectively proposes (where the children live in Australia) that:(i) the mother would pay for all travel costs for herself and the children to City O at the end of term one;(ii) the father would pay for all travel costs for himself and the children for the end of term two holidays in the USA;(iii) the mother would pay for all travel costs for herself and the children to City O at the end of term three;(iv) in the years the children travel to the USA for the end of school year Christmas holidays, the parents are to contribute equally to the children’s airfares.(g)for the reasons already given, the Court will order the children to spend time in the USA with the mother for three weeks at the end of term two holidays and four weeks in the end of year holidays, unless the parties otherwise agree in writing to other holidays;(h)in my view, even though the mother’s current income exceeds the father’s current income, I believe each party can afford and it is appropriate that they contribute 50% of the return airfares from Sydney to City L/City M. I agree both parties are likely to minimise the costs of airfares, but utilisation of the family frequent flyer miles, whilst a good idea, for this couple it would be problematic and, I assess, unwieldy. Of course they could, without any orders, agree to put in place some frequent flyer accounts, however the Court will not order it occur;(i)the orders as to payment of airfares are set out at the commencement of these Reasons which specify:(i)specific arrangements for the proposed trip in December 2020/January 2021, to try to take account of the unusual circumstances currently existing; and(ii)continuing arrangements for future travel.(j)if a parent can (or wishes) to travel on airlines with the children, the parent’s travel costs will be the responsibility of that parent;(k)if the mother elects to travel to Australia in the future, then all travel costs, accommodation expenses and internal travel costs shall be her sole responsibility. Accepting, as the Court does, that the mother’s annual holiday entitlement from employment does not even equate with the seven weeks in the USA the Court will permit, it is difficult to envisage how the mother could travel to Australia however, as these are final orders and her situation might change, the provision for such travel will be made;(l)on balance, a travel fund created for these parents living in different countries and not communicating well, is problematic;(m)although the Court appreciates the mother’s desire to define what each parent should encourage the children to do (and the Court does not suggest her intentions as described are without merit), each parent should, when the children are in their care, have flexibility of deciding which extended family or friends they see and which “national parks and historical sites” they visit. The Court should not make orders which could lead to further proceedings (s 60CC(3)(l)), and as a result the Court is not persuaded to make the mother’s proposed orders – 35, 35.1, 35.2 or 35.3; and(n)I have already indicated the forms of “restraints” and “sharing of information” I regard as appropriate.FINAL CONCLUSION

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.