Loverdos & Bonnor - [2022] FedCFamC2F 893

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
(DIVISION 2)
Loverdos & Bonnor [2022] FedCFamC2F 893

File number(s): SYC 1387 of 2018

Judgment of: JUDGE BOYLE

Date of judgment: 7 July 2022

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – Children – relocation – mother permitted to relocate with children to Queensland.

Legislation: Family Law Act 1975

Cases cited:
Franklyn & Franklyn [2019] FamCAFC 256

Sayer & Radcliffe (2012) 48 Fam LR 298

U & U (2002) 2011 CLR 238

Division: Division 2 Family Law

Number of paragraphs: 129

Date of last submission/s: 7 June 2022

Date of hearing: 2, 3, 4, 5 May 2022

Place: Sydney

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Reeve

Solicitor for the Applicant: Marsdens

Counsel for the Respondent: Ms Kennedy

Solicitor for the Respondent: Broun Abrahams Burreket
ORDERS

SYC 1387 of 2018

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
MR LOVERDOS

Applicant

AND:
MS BONNOR

Respondent

order made by:

JUDGE BOYLE

DATE OF ORDER:

7 July 2022

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The parents shall have equal shared parental responsibility for the children, X born in 2015 and Y born in 2017 (the children).
2.The children shall live with the mother.
3.The mother shall be permitted to relocate the residence of the children to Brisbane, and shall give the father 21 days notice of the move.
4.The father shall spend time with the children in accordance with the orders made 3 February 2020 until the mother moves to Brisbane.

Relocation to Brisbane
5.Upon the children relocating to Brisbane, and on the basis that the father remains living in Sydney, the children shall spend time with the father as agreed between the parties, and failing agreement:
5.1During school terms, on each alternate weekend from after school/day care on Friday until before school/day care on Monday, with such time to occur in Brisbane.
5.2The father may elect to spend one weekend of his time in order 5.1 each school term with the children in Sydney, on providing 14 days written notice to the mother, and changeovers shall occur on the same basis as in order 5.3.
5.3During school holiday periods following term 1, term 2 and term 3 for the first half on the school holiday period in even numbered years and the second half of the school holiday period in odd numbered years with the mother to deliver the children to the father’s residence at the commencement of the time and the father to deliver the children to the mother’s residence at the conclusion of the time.
5.4During the school holiday period following term 4 the children shall spend half of each school holiday period, from the first day of the school holidays until 7 days later at 6.00pm and each alternate week thereafter with the father to have the first week in even numbered years and the mother to have the first week in odd numbered years.
5.5Notwithstanding any other Order, the children shall spend time with the father:
5.5.1From 9:00am on Christmas Eve until 12.00pm on Boxing Day…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Loverdos & Bonnor

Details

AGLC: Loverdos & Bonnor [2022] FedCFamC2F 893
Case: [2022] FedCFamC2F 893
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, Loverdos & Bonnor, the court considered the relocation of two children, X and Y, from Sydney to Brisbane. The mother sought permission to relocate with the children, which the father opposed. The court examined the impact on the children's relationship with their father if they were permitted to relocate to Brisbane, the mother's capacity to support and facilitate a relationship between the children and the father if they lived in Brisbane, and the impact on each of the parties' parenting capacity whether the children were in Brisbane or Sydney. The court found that the children would benefit from their mother achieving in several ways, including her being happy and content, which is positive for her parenting and consequently for their well-being. The court also found that the father had the resources to arrange for regular accommodation in Brisbane, and that the mother had been bearing the burden of being split between two cities, which had come at a significant personal cost. The court concluded that the children would have the benefit of their meaningful relationship with the father continuing and that the children residing in Brisbane would be in their best interests. The court ordered that the parents shall have equal shared parental responsibility for the children, the children shall live with the mother, and the mother shall be permitted to relocate the residence of the children to Brisbane. The father shall spend time with the children in accordance with the orders made until the mother moves to Brisbane. Upon the children relocating to Brisbane, and on the basis that the father remains living in Sydney, the children shall spend time with the father as agreed between the parties, and failing agreement, during school terms, on each alternate weekend from after school/day care on Friday until before school/day care on Monday, with such time to occur in Brisbane.

Orders