Korbin & Korbin
[2022] FedCFamC2F 610
•13 May 2022
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Korbin & Korbin [2022] FedCFamC2F 610
File number(s): DUC 113 of 2022 Judgment of: JUDGE OBRADOVIC Date of judgment: 13 May 2022 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – Interim Parenting – relocation – assessment of risk – best interest of child – consent position as to parental responsibility and live with – mother to return child to City B – father to spend significant and substantial time with child. Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 65DAA Cases cited: Beaton & Beaton [2020] FamCAFC 297
Goode v Goode [2006] FamCA 1346
Jones v Dunkel [1956] HCA 8Keats & Keats [2016] FamCAFC 156
Division: Division 2 Family Law Number of paragraphs: 56 Date of hearing: 11 May 2022 Place: Dubbo Counsel for the Applicant: Ms Seric Solicitors for the Applicant: King Cain Solicitors Counsel for the Respondent: Ms Otrebski Solicitors for the Respondent: Emily Peoples Solicitor ORDERS
DUC 113 of 2022 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: MR KORBIN
Applicant
AND: MS KORBIN
Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE OBRADOVIC
DATE OF ORDER:
13 MAY 2022
BY CONSENT AND PENDING FURTHER ORDER, THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The parents have equal shared parental responsibility for the child, X born in 2017 (“the child”).
2.The child shall live with the mother.
3.The child shall spend time with the father by agreement, but failing agreement, as follows:
(a)In each alternate weekend, from 3:30pm Friday until 4:00pm Sunday; and
(b)By telephone or FaceTime, each Monday, Wednesday and, if the child is not otherwise in the father’s care, Friday and Sunday between 5:00pm to 5:30pm, by phone or other electronic platform such as Skype or Facetime.
Changeover
4.In the event that the child lives in City B, then changeover shall occur at school/daycare or at the Information Centre at City B in the event that changeover occurs on a day that the child does not attend school/daycare.
5.In the event that the child lives in Town C, then changeover shall occur at the Location D rest area at the commencement of time and at the Location E rest area at its conclusion.
Treatment and Injunctions
6.Within 7 days of the date of these orders, the father shall contact his GP for the purposes of the following:
(a)Arranging a consultation at the earliest available opportunity to discuss his alcohol consumption and mental health history; and
(b)Shall request that his GP prepare a mental health care plan and for a referral to appropriate supports and treaters (“the treaters”).
7.The father shall attend upon, engage with and abide by all reasonable directions of the treaters and after a period of 3 months request a report from each treater addressing the following (“the treater’s report”):
(a)His reported mental health history;
(b)His reported alcohol use;
(c)The number of sessions that the father has been booked to attend and how many sessions the father did attend;
(d)The father’s engagement with the treater;
(e)Any diagnoses;
(f)Any medications that have been prescribed and compliance with that medication;
(g)Any recommendations for the father’s future treatment.
8.The father shall provide a copy of the treater’s report to the mother’s legal representatives forthwith and within 48 hours of its receipt.
9.Both parents are restrained from consuming alcohol above the NSW legal driving limit while the child is in their sole care.
Holiday Time
10.Conditional upon the father’s compliance with orders 6, 7 and 8 herein, the child is to spend time with the father during the NSW school holiday periods as follows:
(a)Until the child commences school in 2023, with the father in each of the short school holiday periods, for 4 consecutive nights as agreed but failing agreement, from 9:00am Thursday until 4:00pm Monday commencing in the first week;
(b)For the purposes of the Christmas school holiday period commencing in 2022, for 4 nights by agreement but failing agreement:
(i)From 5:00pm Tuesday 3 January 2023 until 5:00pm 7 January;
(ii)From 5:00pm Sunday 15 January until 5:00pm Thursday 19 January 2023; and
(iii)From 3.30pm Monday 23 January until 4:00pm Wednesday 25 January 2023.
11.Commencing in the Term 1 school holiday period in 2023, that the child spend time with the father for half of the short school holiday periods:
(a)For the first half in even numbered years; and
(b)For the second half in odd numbered years.
12.Conditional upon the father’s compliance with orders 6, 7 and 8 herein, the time pursuant to paragraph 3 be suspended in the NSW school holiday periods.
13.The “first half” of a school holiday period means from 4:30pm on the last day of the school term until 4:00pm on the Sunday falling closest to the midpoint of the holiday period and the “second half” of a school holiday period means from 4:00pm on the Sunday falling closest to the midpoint of the school holiday period until 4:00pm on the final Saturday of the holiday period.
THE COURT NOTES THAT:
A.The mother continues to be engaged with her GP for the purposes of her mental health management. She is due for a check-up in 3 weeks and will attend upon a GP in Town C to continue that treatment.
PENDING FURTHER ORDER, THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS THAT:
Carbohydrate Deficient Transferin Testing
14.Within 7 days of the date of these orders, the father shall submit to a Carbohydrate Deficient Transferin (“CDT”) test and provide to the mother’s legal representatives within 72 hours of receipt, a copy of the result of that test, together with a report from an appropriately qualified person interpreting that test result.
Return of the child’s residence to City B Local Government Area
15.No later than 3pm on Friday 1 July 2022, the mother shall cause the child’s residence to be in the City B Local Government Area and the mother shall thereafter be restrained from relocating the child’s residence outside of the City B Local Government Area without the express written agreement of the father or further Order of the Court.
16.Within twenty-eight (28) days from the date of these orders, the parties shall do all things necessary and sign all documents necessary to cause the child to be re-enrolled in F Day-Care Centre in City B.
Spend time with orders
17.In clarification of the time provided for in order 3(a) herein and in addition to it, the child shall spend time with the father as follows:
(a)Commencing on Friday 13 May 2022 and each alternate week thereafter from 3:30pm on Friday until 4:00pm on Sunday, with such time to increase after the commencement of the fourth school term in October 2022, to commence from the conclusion of day-care/school or 3:30pm on Thursday until 4:00pm on Sunday; and
(b)Upon the mother relocating the child’s residence back to the City B Local Government Area but commencing no later than Wednesday 13 July 2022 and each alternate week thereafter, from the conclusion of day-care/school or 3:30pm on Wednesday until the commencement of day-care/school or 9:00am on Thursday, with such time to increase after the commencement of the fourth school term in October 2022, from the conclusion of day-care/school or 3:30pm on Wednesday until the commencement of day-care/school or 9:00am on Friday.
18.Conditional upon the father’s compliance with orders 6, 7 and 8 herein, the time pursuant to order 17 shall be suspended during the NSW school holiday periods and such time shall resume on the first weekend after the commencement of the new school term.
Special Occasions
19.Notwithstanding any other order herein, on special occasions the child shall spend time with her parents as agreed, but failing agreement as follows:
(a)The father on Father’s Day weekend from after day-care/school or 3:00pm on Friday until 5:00pm Sunday (in the event that the child is not otherwise spending time with the father on that weekend);
(b)The mother on Mother’s Day weekend from after day-care/school or 3:00pm on Friday until 5:00pm Sunday (in the event that the child is not otherwise spending time with the mother on that weekend);
(c)The mother from 5:00pm Christmas Eve until 12:00 noon on Christmas Day in even numbered years, and from 12:00 noon Christmas Day until 5:00pm Boxing Day in odd numbered years;
(d)The father from 12:00 noon Christmas Day until 5:00pm Boxing Day in even numbered years, and from 5:00pm Christmas Eve until 12:00 noon on Christmas Day in odd numbered years;
(e)With the father on the child’s Birthday from after day-care/school or 3:00pm until 5:30pm if it is a school day and from 9:00am until 12:00 noon if it is a non-school day and the child is not otherwise in the father’s care; and
(f)In the event that the child is spending time with the father pursuant to these orders on her birthday, then in such circumstances the child is to be with the mother from 9:00am until 12:00 noon if it is a non-school day, and from 3:00pm until 5:30pm if it is a school day.
20.Each parent and all family members shall be at liberty to attend any school, sporting or extracurricular event to which the child attends regardless of where the child is living or spending time that day.
21.Each parent shall have such authority as is necessary to obtain information as would normally be available to a parent from any professional, body or organisation that holds information about the child including but not limited to doctors, hospitals, schools, and sporting associations.
22.Each parent shall forthwith notify the other at the earliest opportunity if the child is required to attend upon a doctor or a hospital for any reason.
23.Each parent shall forthwith notify the other of any medical, therapist, school or any such other appointment concerning the child at the earliest opportunity but not less than 24 hours prior to that appointment.
24.Each parent shall forthwith notify the other of any major health issue concerning the child which comes to the attention of that parent whilst they are in his or her care.
25.Each parent shall be restrained from denigrating the other parent or a member of his or her household to or in the presence of the child and from permitting another person to do so.
26.Each parent shall keep the other informed of his or her current mobile telephone number.
27.In the event that a parent proposes to change the place where the child normally lives then he or she shall provide the other parent with not less than 21 days prior written notice of the new address.
28.The matter is listed for directions before Judge Dunkley at 12 noon on 20 July 2022 at Dubbo.
THE COURT FURTHER NOTES THAT:
B.Within 7 days of the date of these orders, the father shall pay into the mother’s personal bank account the sum of $5,000 to assist the mother and the child with relocation costs including but not limited to: bond, rent and removalist costs.
C.Within 7 days of the date of these orders, the father shall (through his solicitors) provide the mother with a list of white goods and furniture that she can collect from the father’s home including but not limited to:
a. Washing machine
b. Fridge
c. Chairs and stools
d. Bed
e. Towels
f. Sheets
g. Kettle
h. TV unit
i. Blankets
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 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
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 by this Court under a pseudonym Korbin & Korbin has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE OBRADOVIC:
The proceedings concern 4 year old X, the only child of the applicant father and the respondent mother.
On 16 February 2022, the mother left the parties’ former matrimonial home in City B with X and moved to a house owned by her parents in Town C.
The father moves the Court for orders that X be returned to live in City B. The mother moves the Court for orders that X remain living in Town C.
The parents agree that X should live with the mother and spend alternate weekends with the father and time during the school holidays[1]. The parents disagree about whether X is to live in Town C or in City B and what time she would spend with the father if she lived in City B. The mother submits that notwithstanding where X lives she should only be spending alternate weekends with the father, whereas the father proposes that X spend time with him not only on alternate weekends (which he proposes to extend to 3 nights after 3 months) but also 2 overnights in the “off week”.
[1] Holiday time being subject to the father undergoing health assessments and providing reports about his mental health and alcohol use
The principles in respect of interim hearings are well known, including that the legislative pathway must at all times be followed[2]. Interim hearings are curtailed by the absence of cross-examination and testing of evidence in general, and the Court is often in a position where it is unable to make findings of fact. Even in such constrained circumstances, the Court is still required to determine the applications before it.
[2] Goode v Goode [2006] FamCA 1346
The Court is to determine the issue of risk by weighing the probabilities of competing claims and the likely impact on the child in the event that a controversial assertion is acted upon or rejected[3].
[3] Keats & Keats [2016] FamCAFC 156
Interim relocation cases are not a stand-alone category of cases. Best interest remain the paramount consideration[4].
[4] Beaton & Beaton [2020] FamCAFC 297 at [35]
Agreed Facts
The parents were in a relationship from about mid 2012 until October 2015, when they separated.
The parents recommenced their relationship in 2016, and were married in 2017.
X was born in 2017 in City B, and prior to her relocation to Town C in February 2022, she had only lived in City B.
The parents lived in City B throughout their relationship.
On 16 February 2022, the mother left the former matrimonial home with X while the father was at work, and moved to Town C.
The travel time between Town C and City B is approximately 1 hour and 30 minutes by car, one way, with the distance being some 140km.
X has been spending alternate weekends with the father since early March 2022 to date. Such time commences at 3.30pm on a Friday and concludes at 4pm on a Sunday. The parents meet at Location D at the commencement of the time and at Location E rest area at the conclusion of the time for the purposes of changeover.
Determination
The parents are in disagreement as to the date of separation. The mother asserts that she and the father separated in August 2021, and they continued living under the one roof until 16 February 2022. The father asserts that the date of separation was in January 2022, but that they continued living under the one roof until the date the mother unilaterally relocated with X to Town C.
The mother further asserts that she had told the father in September 2021 that she was intending to relocate with X to Town C and that the father was not opposed to such a move. The father asserts that when the parties decided to separate in January 2022, he told the mother that he had no opposition to her moving to Town C but that X was to remain living in City B.
Text messages which form part of Exhibit 2[5] and the mother’s case, seem to indicate that the mother had been communicating with her mother in October (presumably 2021) about then difficulties with her relationship with the father. However, the messages also appear to suggest that that the maternal grandmother was urging the mother to leave the relationship, but that the mother did not do so.
[5] See particularly pages 11-13 which appear to be a chain of texts starting from the mother at 9.11pm (presumably on 7 October) and concluding with a text message from the maternal grandmother at 7.37am on 8 October.
There are then further text messages[6] between the mother and the maternal grandmother in January (presumably 2022) where the mother indicates that she is “done” and that she is “getting X and I out of here will look at rentals tonight.” The mother then further indicates through text messages to her mother that she would be looking at rental properties in Town C. Her sworn evidence is silent on these issues, that is, she does not say that she had in fact looked for rental properties at that time, whether in Town C or in City B. The mother and the maternal grandmother continue their conversation via text messages where the mother indicates her doubt about “walking away from my job taking X away from daycare”[7].
[6] Exhibit 2 pages 8-10
[7] Exhibit 2 page 10
The parents agree that there was an argument between them on 15 February 2022 and that the following day, while the father was at work, the mother left the former matrimonial home with X. The father says that he assumed the mother had gone with X to her parents’ home in Town C (as she had previously), but that she would return and not move X permanently to Town C as he had told her that he was opposed to X moving.
Despite the parents’ disagreement as to whether or not the father had agreed to the mother relocating with the child to Town C in late 2021, there is no doubt that by 28 February 2022, the father had made his position about the relocation clear. The parents had attended mediation on 25 February 2022, and the father instructed his solicitor to send a letter to the mother on 28 February 2022. The father notified the mother through that solicitor’s letter, that he did not consent to the mother relocating with the child outside of the City B Local Government area, and he sought a written undertaking that the mother would not establish a permanent residency in Town C outside of her parents’ property, that she would not enrol X in any day care or pre-school or that she would not commence employment in the Town C area.
The mother and X live in a property owned by the mother’s parents which is in Town C. It is a property which is presently listed for sale and if they are to stay living in Town C, the mother and X will need to re-establish themselves in a rental property.
The mother presently works 3 days per week and earns $612.50 per week. She receives Centrelink Single Parenting Payment of $516.00 per fortnight.
The mother obtained employment in Town C in early March 2022.
Prior to moving from City B to Town C, the mother was employed in retail and worked on Sundays, Mondays, Wednesdays and Thursday afternoons. The mother is silent as to her income prior to moving to Town C, and a Jones v Dunkel[8] inference is drawn in this regard. Furthermore, it is inferred that she was earning at least the same, if not more, than she is presently earning[9].
[8] [1959] HCA 8
[9] Such inference is drawn on the basis that she was working more days than she is currently and that Sundays are a day when penalty rates are paid for workers in the retail industry (judicial notice)
The mother says that she is now back working in childcare as opposed to retail, but she does not explain why she did not work in childcare while living in City B or what impact this has had on her. The mother was certainly employed prior to her move to Town C and she chose to leave that employment, without it seems, notice[10].
[10] The mother’s evidence as to the circumstances of her employment in City B and now in Town C is limited at best.
The mother enrolled X in day-care/pre-school in Town C in mid-March 2022, and she did so unilaterally and in the face of the father’s express opposition to such a course. The mother has further registered X for the “G” Playgroup and has been welcomed to the H School at Town C community. The playgroup is a way for X to become familiar with the school environment. It is the school the mother proposes X attend from the beginning of 2023.
The father commenced these proceedings on 11 April 2022, after putting the mother on notice that he would do so and after putting the mother on notice that he did not consent to the child being enrolled in day-care in Town C. In light of the father’s opposition and in the knowledge of the impeding proceedings, the mother still went ahead and enrolled the child into day-care, and took steps to commence the enrolment process into primary school.
Prior to moving from City B to Town C, X attended day-care three days per week. The father says that she attended day-care on Mondays, Wednesdays and Thursdays. The mother does not specify the days, however she says that the only day the father was with X was on Sundays (when she was at work) and that X was otherwise in day-care.
On the mother’s case, prior to physical separation, all of X’s needs were met by her. The mother however says that she worked Thursday “night shift”, that on Thursdays she picked X up from day-care at around 3.30pm and that the father would look after her from when he arrived home[11] to presumably when the mother arrived home from working Thursday nights. The mother also says that the father generally showered X of an evening before she was put to bed at 7pm.
[11] The mother says her friend Ms J looked after X from 3.30pm to when the father got home from work. The mother says that the father generally got home from work at around 4pm.
The father says that he was very involved with X’s care, that he picked her up from day-care, that they spend quality time together in ways he describes as playing and doing things on the farm together. He says he regularly takes her fishing, that he on occasions sleeps in a tent with her in the backyard at home, that he taught her to swim, and that initially when she was taking dance lessons on Saturdays both he and the mother would take her to her dancing lessons.
The mother submits that the father’s capacity to parent is untested because X has never been looked after just by him for more than 2 nights per fortnight. Given that the parties’ lived under the one roof until February 2022, and that it was not until the mother moved with X to another residence in Town C and that neither parent had the sole care of the child in the sense described by the mother until after February 2022[12], it is a submission that carries little to no weight.
[12] The Court does note that the father was until 2019 working during the nights and that on the nights he worked X was likely looked after solely by the mother, similarly to the father looking solely after X on Sundays when the mother was at work
There is no evidence about the cost of rental accommodation either in City B or in Town C.
The father has offered to pay $5,000 to the mother to assist the mother and X with relocation costs (independent of whether they live in Town C or City B) including but not limited to bond, rent and removalist costs. The father has also proposed to provide to the mother a list of white goods and furniture to be collected from the former matrimonial home, including but not limited to washing machine, fridge, chair and stools, bed, towels, sheets, kettle, TV unit and blankets. The father does not pay any child support, however it appears that he has not yet been assessed for child support either.
The father appears to have a supportive and flexible employer who has indicated that the father is able to either work flexibly or take time off work in order to spend time with X in accordance with his proposal.
The mother raises issues of risk, she says that she was subjected to family violence while living with the father, that the father suffers from unaddressed mental health issues and that the father is an alcoholic. The latter two of these matters have been addressed by the parents’ agreeing to the father undertaking assessments and providing a report to the mother about these issues. The parents have agreed that X’s time with the father during school holidays is contingent upon such reports being provided by the father. This mitigates some of the risks identified by the mother.
In addition, the allegations of family violence potentially raise other risks for the child, which were not specifically articulated. It appears though that the violence alleged was situational and now that the parents are separated, the mother has indicated that now she is no longer living with the father or in City B that she feels she can co-parent with the father.
The mother herself suffers from depression and anxiety and is prescribed medication. The mother deposes to self-medicating with alcohol prior to February 2022. The father does not raise any issues of risk in this regard, although he did move the Court for an order that the mother be required to undertake carbohydrate deficient transferin testing. The evidence does not support such an order, although given the mother’s own evidence about her alcohol use it might assist her case in the future.
It was submitted on behalf of the mother that due to her emotional vulnerabilities any order which required her to reside in City B would have an adverse impact upon her mental health, and consequently upon her capacity to parent X. Given that she is X’s primary carer it was said that this would have a negative impact on X. The mother does not put forward any expert evidence in support of such submissions.
The mother’s evidence is that she suffered anxiety attacks in 2018 when the father wanted to separate and she did not. She says that the father’s confusing behaviour towards her (for example the making of nasty comments but also the giving of love notes[13]) caused her to become extremely anxious and have panic attacks.
[13] Paragraphs 28 and 29 of Mother’s Affidavit filed 7 May 2022
The mother’s own evidence is that she has been able to seek and obtain support from her mother when she was feeling emotionally vulnerable, whether through text messages or by going to stay with her parents (including with X). The mother does also say that the father is critical of her relationship with the maternal grandmother and that her and her mother “would exchange text messages because I was worried Mr Korbin would be able to hear me talking on the phone to my mother”. Whether the mother had cause to worry is an entirely different issue, but at least in October 2021[14] following what appears to be some nasty behaviour by the father towards the mother, the mother did speak to the maternal grandmother it appears while the father was present.
[14] Exhibit 2 page 11
The mother seems to have a number of vulnerabilities, which may be impacted upon by a number of factors, and to simply ask the Court to accept that the mother would not cope emotionally by being required to return the child’s residence to City B is not a submission that can be accepted on the evidence. The Court accepts that it is not something she wishes to do and that it is likely to cause her distress.
However, the Court is also mindful that without the child living in close proximity to both of her parents it is likely that in the long term and particularly given her age and developmental needs, her relationship with the parent who lives far away is likely to be detrimentally affected. The submission was made that it has not been so detrimentally affected to date because X is able to spend meaningful time with her dad every second weekend, she speaks to him regularly on the phone and she is able to text him (albeit such texts appear to simply be jibberish and emojis).
The experience of this Court is that for young children it is important that they have the benefit of frequent quality time with each of their parents in order to maintain meaningful relationships. It is likely that if X remains in Town C and commences school there in 2023 as the mother proposes, her capacity to maintain a meaningful relationship with her father who will not be able to participate in her usual activities due to the distance between the two places of residence, will be detrimentally affected.
The parents each agree and submit that X has a meaningful relationship with each of her parents and that her relationships with each of her parents are important to her. The mother submits that she supports X’s continuing relationship with the father. However, she submits that even if X is to live with her in City B, she should still only spend alternate weekends with the father (although it was further submitted on behalf of the mother that the Court would not on the evidence be precluded from making orders for X to spend time with the father during weekdays).
The parents agree that they should have equal shared parental responsibility for the child. If the Court makes such an order, this then ‘triggers’ the operation of s.65DAA and the Court must then consider the child spending equal time and/or significant and substantial time with each of her parents. Neither parent presses for an order for equal time and in the circumstances of this case it is not an order that would be in X’s best interest.
The mother’s proposal is not for the child to spend significant and substantial time[15] with the father, notwithstanding whether her residence would be in City B or in Town C. Clearly there are practical difficulties with the child spending time with the father during weekdays and for the father to be involved in her daily routine if she is living with the mother in Town C, but not so if she is living with the mother in City B.
[15] Within the meaning of s.65DAA(3)
The Court was not persuaded by the submissions made on behalf of the mother as to why an order for significant and substantial time was not in the child’s best interest if there were no practical difficulties associated with such time.
It appears that the mother may not have turned her mind to the impact on X of moving from home, leaving her day-care and missing out on the presence of her father in her everyday life. If she did so, she does not explain in her evidence why a move to Town C is in X’s best interest as opposed to the mother simply finding rental accommodation in City B so that there is the least disruption to X. The mother’s submission that the distance is not prohibitive (an hour and thirty minutes) must also apply to the mother and her capacity to travel to spend time with her parents and obtain their support.
The mother is currently engaged with a GP in Town C for the purposes of her mental health management. She had previously engaged with mental health services in City B. There is nothing to suggest that she cannot do so again in the future if appropriate.
The mother submits through her counsel that she is open to the father coming to Town C to be more involved with X and with her schooling. The mother did not however, put any proposal to the Court for the child to spend any more than alternate weekends with the father, as noted earlier, wherever the child lived. It is confusing and somewhat illogical for the mother to submit that the father poses a risk and that is in part why the child should only spend alternate weekends with the father even if she lives in City B, but then to submit that the mother would not stand in the way of the father spending more time with X if he came to Town C.
Ultimately, the Court is tasked with determining what is in X’s best interests, not the mother’s or the father’s.
On balance it is in X’s best interest that she live in close proximity to both of her parents such that she can spend significant and substantial time with the parent with whom she does not reside.
It is appropriate that the mother be provided with a reasonable period of time, to make arrangements and return with the child to the City B Local Government Area. It is likely that the 28 days as proposed by the father may be too short a period and that a longer period of 56 days (8 weeks) is more appropriate.
It is not in X’s best interest, given the recent upheavals consequent upon the mother’s unilateral decision of remaining in Town C with X and further likely upheavals as a result of these orders, that her time with the father include two overnight periods in the ‘off week’ but rather just one immediately upon her return to City B. The Court is not persuaded that at present and at this interim stage of the proceedings, the father’s proposed orders for an increase in time with X after 3 months is best for the child, but rather that it start from October 2022, when she has had time to adjust to returning to City B and to spending more regular and frequent time with the father. This is so that she can well and truly settle into her new routine prior to commencing school in 2023.
In addition, the Court makes orders sought by the father for special occasions and in respect of communication and notification.
For all of those reasons, orders as set out at the forefront of these Reasons for Judgment will be made.
I certify that the preceding fifty-six (56) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Obradovic. Associate:
Dated: 13 May 2022
0
4
1