Pankhurst & Standen
[2023] FedCFamC1F 270
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Pankhurst & Standen [2023] FedCFamC1F 270
File number: CAC 285 of 2023 Judgment of: GILL J Date of judgment: 14 April 2023 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where mother seeks variation of consent final orders for a single instance of international travel with the children over the school holidays – Consideration of Rice & Asplund principles. Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 60CC Cases cited:
Kuebler & Kuebler (1978) FLC 90–434
Lauber & Truman [2010] FamCA 274
Marsden & Winch [2009] FamCAFC 152
O'Brien & O'Brien [2017] FamCAFC 219
Rice v Asplund (1979) FLC 90-725
SPS & PLS (2008) FLC 93–363
Division: Division 1 First Instance Number of paragraphs: 45 Date of hearing: 11 April 2023 Place: Canberra Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Schmidt Solicitor for the Applicant: Sage Family Lawyers Solicitor for the Respondent: Litigant in person ORDERS
CAC 285 of 2023 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN: MS PANKHURST
Applicant
AND: MR STANDEN
Respondent
order made by:
GILL J
DATE OF ORDER:
14 APRIL 2023
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Paragraphs three (3) and four (4) of the orders made by this Honourable Court on 28 January 2022 (“Final Orders”) are suspended between the conclusion of school or if it is not a school day, at 3.30 pm on Friday 30 June 2023 and Monday 17 July 2023.
2.The children:
(a)X born 2012;
(b)Y born 2014; and
(c)Z born 2016;
(collectively “the children”) will live with the mother from 3.30 pm Friday 30 June 2023 to the evening of Monday 10 July 2023.
3.The children will live with the father from the evening of Monday 10 July 2023 to Monday 17 July 2023.
4.Paragraph 20(a) of the Final Orders is varied to enable the children to travel to the European Union, as provided for in these orders.
5.The mother is permitted to take the children to travel to the European Union at her expense from Friday 30 June 2023 to Monday 10 July 2023.
6.The father will forthwith give the passports of X and Y, that he currently holds, to the mother.
7.The mother will return the passports of X and Y to the father on Monday 10 July 2023.
8.If visas are required, the parties will forthwith do all things and sign all documents required to obtain for the children, at the mother’s expense, visas to enter and exit the European Union for the purposes of the travel proposed at paragraph five (5) of these orders.
9.The mother is at liberty to provide a copy of these orders to any border control, customs, migration and/or similar officer for the purposes of enabling the children to travel to the European Union as provided for in these orders.
10.The Final Orders will otherwise continue in full force and effect.
11.The Initiating Application and Response are otherwise 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 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 has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
GILL J:
INTRODUCTION
In this matter the parties, who are the parents of X, born 2012, Y, born 2014 and Z, born 2016, entered into final orders, by consent, in relation to parenting on 28 January 2022 before the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia - Division One. In general terms, those orders provided for equal shared parental responsibility, an alternative week arrangement of equally shared time and the splitting of holidays.
The orders also provided for arrangements for international travel that, subject to the fulfilling of certain preconditions, enabled either parent to take the children overseas during periods that the children were in that parents care. This was undoubtedly a matter of importance given that the family relocated to Australia prior to the breakdown of the marriage and have enduring ties to the United Kingdom and Country B.
The final orders also provided that in default of the parents obtaining permanent residency in Australia, there were fall-back provisions to enable either parent to relocate overseas with the children, depending upon which parent was in default in respect of the obtaining of such permanent residency.
The current proceedings involve, in main part, a further application made by the mother to enable a single instance of international travel by her with the three children in June/July 2023 under circumstances that are at variance with the current orders that provide for international travel. This is in order to allow the mother and children to attend a family event in Country C and then to visit relatives in Country B. The father provides a suite of different options but, in the event that the mother’s application to travel is acquiesced to seeks that the Court deal with other matters concerning the children and the compensation of particular monies to him.
It may be seen that the contest before the Court is reasonably urgent, is of narrow scope, and occurs in a context of previous final orders. It may also be observed that the orders being pursued by the mother follow the filing of a further initiating application and would constitute the amendment of the previous consent final orders to incorporate further final terms in relation to international travel.
THE HEARING OF THIS APPLICATION
This matter was initially listed for hearing before a Senior Judicial Registrar. However, it became apparent that the nature of litigation did not fall within a relevant delegation to a Senior Judicial Registrar and the matter was transferred before me.
It was identified to the parties that, given the final orders from January 2022, this application required that the principles set out in cases such as Rice v Asplund,[1] be considered and applied in order to determine whether the relief sought by either of the parties was sought in circumstances that justified the Court embarking upon the hearing of litigation in the face of the recently made consent orders. The parties were required to address the Court on those issues. The parties were also required to address the Court as to the appropriate manner of the hearing of this final application. While it was observed that, unlike interim proceedings, final proceedings usually involve the cross-examination of witnesses, the parties accepted that cross-examination was not necessary given the narrow compass and the particular factual matters that have been raised, in order to resolve these proceedings. Accordingly, the matter was able to proceed to an immediate final hearing on the material that had been filed by the parties, without the need for cross-examination. The parties advised the Court that they were ready for the matter to proceed and sought that the Court deal with it immediately.
MATERIAL RELIED UPON
[1] (1979) FLC 90-725.
Applicant Mother
As per the applicant mother’s Outline of Case document filed 27 February 2023, and clarified at the hearing, she relied upon the following:
(1)Initiating Application filed 27 February 2023;
(2)Affidavit of the mother filed 22 March 2023;
(3)Outline of Case filed 6 April 2023; and
(4)Tender Bundle.
Respondent Father
As per the respondent father’s Outline of Case document filed 7 April 2023, and clarified orally at the hearing, he relied upon the following:
(1)Response to Initiating Application filed 7 April 2023;
(2)Affidavit of the mother filed 22 March 2023;
(3)Affidavit of the father filed 7 March 2023;
(4)Proposed Minutes of Consent Orders filed 7 March 2023;
(5)Copy of Final Orders filed 7 March 2023; and
(6)Tender Bundle.
ORDERS SOUGHT
The specific orders sought by the parties are set out in an annexure to this judgment. They are summarised below.
Applicant mother
The mother sought orders that would enable her to remove the children from Australia to the European Union from 30 June 2023 to 23 July 2023 inclusive, along with machinery orders to enable such to happen. By her Case Outline document she identified a minute of orders whereby the children would be given make up time with the father for a period of three consecutive weeks between 5 June 2023 to Monday 26 June 2023, along with 21 September 2023 to 10 October 2023 being the entirety of the term three 2023 school holidays. This was in a context that her application would result in the children spending the entirety of the July school holidays with the mother, along with the first week of school of term three.
Respondent father
The father set out three options for the resolution of the matter.
Option one involved an order such that the children would be left in his care whilst the mother travelled to Europe during July 2023.
Option two provided that there would be a swap in the mother and father’s time during the school holiday period for July 2023, along with the father delaying the start of his school holiday time such as to permit the mother to travel to the European Union with the children, sufficient to enable the mother and the children to attend the family event in Country C.
Option three as set out by the father permitted the mother to travel with the children to the European Union for the whole of the period sought by her being from 30 June 2023 to 23 July 2023, subject to an order for make-up time, at the option of the father, for one of the entire Australian autumn, winter or spring school holiday periods up to and including the spring school holidays of 2026, on the father providing at least 28 days written notice to the mother of his nomination, should he exercise it. A further condition was that the mother would pay the sum of $1,545 to the father by way of compensation for an expense incurred by him for holiday expenses for the children. A further condition was that there would be a change to the handover time for the alternating week arrangement from a Monday after school to a Sunday evening. Further, the father asked that there be a restraint on the parties being able to remove the children from school during term time without the written approval of the other party, for an order that permits the children to take items between the homes of the parents, and that there be amendment to a notation contained in the consent orders.
Absent such ancillary orders being made, the father opposed any other order being made other than as set out in option one or option two above.
The evidence
Much of the affidavit material filed by each of the parties was dedicated to criticism of the other, in particular descriptions of the uncooperative, difficult, combative, at times abusive and nasty interactions that are likely to undermine any cooperative parenting arrangement. This evidence appeared to have little significance to the resolution of the particular issues litigated before me, save to the extent that it led to an uncontroversial conclusion that the parties have a highly dysfunctional parenting relationship.
There was also scant evidence directed to the ancillary relief sought by the father under his option three. There is little, if any, evidence directed to the benefits of a change in the handover day for the parties’ week about arrangement. While there was some evidence from each party that the other had withdrawn the children from school on occasion, there was no sufficient evidential basis to support an injunction mandating that the children are not to be removed from school for a day without the prior written approval of the other party. While there was also some evidence that the mother has refused to allow the children to move various items freely between the households, again the extent of this evidence fell far short of sufficient to justify injunctive relief directed to this topic. Similarly, there was no evidence adequate to support the basis on which the father sought that the notation to the consent orders be changed, even if there was a capacity in the Court to do so. Finally, whilst there was clear evidence that the father paid for holiday expenses for the children at a cost of $1,545 at a time after which the mother had requested the children travel to Europe with her, there was no source of power identified to make an order to compensate the father for this amount.
The evidence in relation to the proposed trip to Europe and its effects can be distilled as follows.
The mother’s sister, Ms D and her partner Mr E are to host a family event in Country C in July 2023. Ms D has secured group accommodation for the various Pankhurst families for a period of one week prior to, and some days after the event. The event is an opportunity for the various Pankhurst families to come together in a manner that the mother describes as a “rare opportunity”. The mother’s sister Ms G and her family, along with her brother Mr F and his family are anticipated to be in attendance. The mother has not seen them since 2018. The mother’s sister Ms H along with her husband and children (who live in Sydney, Australia) are also anticipated to be in attendance, as of course will be Ms D and her partner, along with their child J. While the mother concedes that Ms D, Mr E and J visited Australia between late 2022 and early 2023, that Ms H and her family live in Sydney, that she has recently had a visit from one of her nephews and that her mother visits each year for a month or more, she correctly describes this is a rare opportunity for the whole family to get together.
Further, it is anticipated that there would be special involvement of the nieces and nephews in the event.
The mother describes that flights to and from Europe would be of about 20 hours duration each way.
The mother further hopes, in addition to flying to Europe for the family event, to fly a few days after the event to visit a cousin and her mother in Country B before returning with the children to Australia.
On the mother’s proposal, the children would miss the first four days of the school term, along with some two weeks of time with the father.
The father observes that one of the children is struggling at school. His evidence is that he would miss his “precious holiday time” with the children in a manner which would mean that he would have no holiday time with them for approximately half a year should the mother’s application be acceded to. His evidence is that this would disrupt plans that he has for holidaying with the children, he having paid activity expenses at a cost of $1,545, asserting that that school holiday period is likely the only available time for the children and he to do such activity together.
This appears to be the extent of any evidence of significance to the resolution of the travel issue.
Principles and discussion
The mother’s application is for final orders to amend final orders as to a single instance of overseas travel.
As identified in the case of Lauber & Truman,[2] the application by the mother in relation to travel is the application for a parenting order. Accordingly, welfare of the children is the paramount consideration, it is to be determined by an examination of the s 60CC factors contained within Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). This occurs in the context of final orders, which are not to be otherwise disrupted, that already provide for an equal sharing of parental responsibility and equal time.
[2] [2010] FamCA 274.
The recently made final orders mean that consideration must be given to the principles in Rice v Asplund,[3] which recognise, pursuant to cases such as SPS & PLS,[4] that “continuous litigation over the child or children is not generally in their interests”[5] but also that significant changes occur that require reconsideration of previous determinations. In considering whether to embark upon a further hearing, the Court is to consider “whether to do so would be demonstrably contrary to the best interests of the child”.[6] In doing so, the Court will consider (at [50]):
(1) The past circumstances, including the reasons for the decision and the evidence upon which it was based.
(2) Whether there is a likelihood of orders being varied in a significant way, as a result of the new hearing.
(3) If there is such a likelihood, the nature of the likely changes must be weighed against the potential detriment to the child or children caused by the litigation itself. Thus, for example, small changes may not have sufficient benefit to compensate for the disruption caused by significant re-litigation.
[3] (1979) FLA 90-725.
[4] (2008) FLC 93–363.
[5] Marsden & Winch [2009] FamCAFC 152 at [49].
[6] Marsden & Winch [2009] FamCAFC 152 at [58].
In O’Brien & O’Brien,[7] the Full Court observed that the determination of whether to embark upon such a further hearing is “merely a manifestation of the best interests principle.”[8]
[7] [2017] FamCAFC 219.
[8] O’Brien v O’Brien [2017] FamCAFC 219 at [22].
Here, then it is necessary to consider both the scope and nature of the change in circumstances, being the instance of the family event, and the scope of the detriment potentially arising from the litigation, weighed in accordance with the extent of that litigation.
In doing so it should be recognised that the variation sought in relation to the orders is minor, and the potential benefits to the children are narrow. This is a matter the points against further hearing in the face of the recent consent finalisation of the dispute between the parties.
However, it should also be recognised that the process to the determination of this issue between the parties is now, but for judgment, complete and hence is in itself narrow. That is a matter that points away from concluding that there is a significant detriment caused by the consideration and determination that remains to complete the process. It may also be thought that any such detriment is further ameliorated by the Court being able to quell a controversy between the parties that appears, on their evidence, to be a source of long-running aggravation between them.
In this case the benefits, or rather potential benefits to the children in considering their attendance at the family event are sufficient to justify the conduct of the narrow hearing which is now complete, but for judgment, in any event.
As identified above, the resolution turns on how the evidence points to the best interests of the children being served. I was properly taken to Kuebler & Kuebler,[9] and to Lauber & Truman,[10] the specific considerations that were there identified as being:
(a) The length of the proposed stay out of the jurisdiction;
(b) The bona fides of the application;
(c) The effect on the child of any deprivation of access;
(d) Any threats to the welfare of the child by the circumstances of the proposed environment;
(e) The degree of satisfaction in which the Court based its assessment of the parties that a promise of a return to the jurisdiction would be honoured.[11]
[9] (1978) FLC 90–434.
[10] [2010] FamCA 274.
[11] Lauber v Truman [2010] FamCA 274 at [11].
However, the parties reasonably identified that these matters were not really an issue. No one contends the travel involves an extended stay or absence from a parent, or that there are risks of harm or risks of non-return.
The issue is as to the effect of the disruption of the current regime of the children spending time with each of the parents and in particular over school holiday time as weighed against the benefits of the proposed travel.
Those issues engage in a significant manner with only a few of the s 60CC considerations. Of those considerations, s 60CC(3)(b), (d) and (m) were identified. At the heart of the consideration is the weighing of the benefit to the children of being in the company of the whole maternal family. This may be inferred to be a matter that is of benefit to them given the far-flung nature of the maternal family and the rare opportunity to experience the family together as a whole. It may be accepted that there has been contact with members of the family despite the children being in Australia, which it may be observed is at the opposite end of the world to the mother’s home country of Country B. That contact with family in Australia is in itself suggestive of the importance of family connection within the maternal family given the efforts that have been gone to defeat the tyranny of distance.
Against those benefits of being with the whole family, it should be acknowledged that the children will be engaged in onerous travel and on the mother’s proposal would miss out on holiday time with the father and some school.
Despite one of the children struggling at school the evidence does not point to a conclusion that the missing of a mere four days of school is a matter of significant impact.
While it is undesirable that the children would miss holiday time with the father (the father proposes that he have an option to exercise future make-up time) and missing out on their planned holiday activity, if the benefits of the travel are sufficient this detriment should not be assessed as great, given the week about arrangement means that they would only be missing a small portion of time with the father.
The question is the degree of benefit. While the travel for the family event may be inferred to be of significant benefit to the children, the evidence about the extended trip to Country B was scant. It may be thought that there is value in milking as much benefit as possible from the trip to Europe given the onerous nature of the travel. However, the scant evidence, and vagueness of the circumstances, particularly where it may be observed that the children already regularly have significant time with the maternal grandmother, do not demonstrate any significant benefit in the extended travel sufficient to outweigh the displacement of the other holiday plans with the father.
The father’s option two accommodates the children reaping the benefits of the holiday with him and also the benefits of being with the rare collection of the far-flung maternal family. It forms the proper discretionary resolution of the dispute between the parties.
This in turn means that the ancillary relief sought by the father as attached his option three does not arise. However, I would observe that it should be understood that if those matters did arise, they would be the subject of summary dismissal in any event, given the dearth of evidence or the lack of power to do what was sought by the father.
CONCLUSION
Orders will be made substantively in accordance with option two of the father with minor variation to facilitate travel by the children being in the care of the mother from the last day of term.
I certify that the preceding forty-five (45) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Gill. Associate:
Dated: 14 April 2023
Orders sought by the Applicant Mother as per her Outline of Case filed 6 April 2023
1.The mother is permitted to take the following children to travel to the European Union at her expense from Friday 30 June 2023 to Sunday 23 July 2023 inclusive:
(a)X born 2012;
(b) Y born 2014;
(c)Z born 2016;
(collectively, the Children).
2.The Father will forthwith give the Children’s passports to the Mother.
3.That if visas are required, the parties will forthwith do all things and sign all documents required to obtain for the Children, at the Mother’s expense, visas to enter and exist the European Union for the purposes of the travel proposed at paragraph 1 of these orders.
4.Paragraph 4 of the orders made by this Honourable Court on 28 January 2022 will be suspended between Friday, 30 June 2023 and Sunday, 23 July 2023 and the Children will remain in the care and control of the Mother during that time.
5.By way of make-up time and notwithstanding paragraphs 3 and 4 of the orders made by this Honourable Court on 28 January 2022, the Children will be in the care of the Father from:
(a)Monday 5 June 2023 to Monday 26 June 2023 (a period of 3 consecutive weeks including King’s Birthday weekend); and
(b)Thursday 21 September 2023 to Tuesday 10 October 2023 (the entirety of the Term 3, 2023 school holidays).
6.The Mother is at liberty to provide a copy of these orders to any border control, customs, migration and/or similar officer for the purposes of enabling the Children to travel to the European Union as provided for in these orders.
7.The orders made by this Honourable Court on 28 January 2022 will otherwise continue in full force and effect.
8.That the Father pay the Mother’s costs of and incidental to this application.
9.Pursuant to sections 65DA(2) and 62B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the particulars of the obligations these orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these orders and details of who can assist the parties adjust to and comply with an order are set out in the Fact Sheet attached hereto and these particulars are included in these orders.
Option One Terms of Settlement proposed by the Respondent Father filed 7 April 2023
1.The Respondent Father has the children in his care whilst the Applicant Mother is in Europe during July 2023.
The children are:
(a)X – born 2012;
(b)Y – born 2014;
(c) Z born 2016;
(collectively, the Children).
2.Paragraphs 3 & 4 of the orders made by this Honourable Court on 28th January 2022 will be suspended during July 2023 from the date the Applicant Mother leaves City K until her return to City K.
3.The orders made by this Honourable Court on 28th January 2022 will otherwise continue in full force and effect.
4.Each party will bear his or her own costs of these proceedings.
5.Pursuant to sections 65DA(2) and 62B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the particulars of the obligations these orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these orders and details of who can assist the parties adjust to and comply with an order are set out in the Fact Sheet attached hereto and these particulars are included in these orders.
Option Two Terms of Settlement proposed by the Respondent Father filed 7 April 2023
1.The Applicant Mother and the Respondent Father swap their time with the children during the school holiday period of 1st July 2023 – 17th July 2023 inclusive.
The children are:
(a)X – born 2012;
(b)Y – born 2014;
(c)Z born –2016;
(collectively, the Children).
2.In addition, the Respondent Father will delay the start of his holiday time with the children. This being from 17:00 on Sunday 9th July until the evening of Monday 10th July 2023.
3.The Applicant Mother will have 1st July 2023 – Monday evening 10th July 2023 with the children in her care.
4.The Respondent Father will have Monday evening 10th July 2023 – Monday 17th July 2023 with the children in his care.
5.The Applicant Mother is permitted to take the Children to Europe at her expense departing Australia no earlier than 1st July 2023 and departing from Europe no later than the morning of 9th July 2023 so that the children are back in City K no later than the evening of 10th July 2023.
6.The Husband will forthwith give the Children’s passports that he holds (those being of X & Y) to the Mother.
7.The Mother will return the passports that the Father ordinarily holds (those being of X & Y) to the Father by 11th July 2023.
8.Paragraphs 3&4 of the orders made by this Honourable Court on 28th January 2022 will be suspended between Saturday 1st July 2023 and Monday 10th July 2023 inclusive.
9.Paragraph 20(a) of the orders made by this Honourable Court on 28th January 2022 is varied to enable the Children to travel to the European Union as provided for in these orders.
10.The Mother is at liberty to provide a copy of these orders to any border control, customs, migration and/or similar officer for the purposes of enabling the Children to travel to Europe as provided for in these orders.
11.The orders made by this Honourable Court on 28th January 2022 will otherwise continue in full force and effect.
12.Each party will bear his or her own costs of these proceedings.
13.Pursuant to sections 65DA(2) and 62B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the particulars of the obligations these orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these orders and details of who can assist the parties adjust to and comply with an order are set out in the Fact Sheet attached hereto and these particulars are included in these orders.
Option Three Terms of Settlement proposed by the Respondent Father filed 7 April 2023
1.The Applicant Mother and the Respondent Father swap their time with the children during the school holiday period of 1st July 2023 – 17th July 2023 inclusive.
The children are:
(a)X – born 2012;
(b)Y – born 2014;
(c)Z born – 2016;
(collectively, the Children).
2.The Husband will forthwith give the Children’s passports that he holds (those being of X & Y) to the Mother.
3.The Mother will return the passports that the Father ordinarily holds (those being of X & Y) to the Father by 24th July 2023.
4.Paragraph 4 of the orders made by this Honourable Court on 28th January 2022 will be suspended between Saturday 1st July 2023 and Sunday 23rd July 2023 and the Children will remain in the care and control of the Mother during that time.
5.Paragraph 20(a) of the orders made by this Honourable Court on 28th January 2022 is varied to enable the Children to travel to the European Union as provided for in these orders.
6.The Mother is at liberty to provide a copy of these orders to any border control, customs, migration and/or similar officer for the purposes of enabling the Children to travel to Europe as provided for in these orders.
7.By way of make-up time and notwithstanding paragraphs 3(a), 3(b), 4(a) and 4(b) of the orders made by this Honourable Court on 28th January 2022, the Father has:
(a)Upon the children’s return from Europe the Children in his care on Sunday 23rd July 2023 from 12:00-18:00.
(b)The option for the Children to be in his care for one of the entire Australian autumn, winter or spring school holiday periods (a period of approximately two weeks) at a time of his choosing up to and including the spring school holidays of 2026. The Father will provide the Mother with at least 28 days written notice in advance of his choosing one of these holiday periods.
8.Within 14 days of the date of these orders the Mother will pay AUD $1,545 to a bank account nominated in writing by the Father by way of reimbursement for the costs of the children’s holiday expenses.
9.Paragraph’s 3(a) and 4(a) of the orders made by this Honourable Court on 28th January 2022 will be permanently changed from the beginning of school term on 26th April 2023 to the following:
‘During school term from the Sunday evening prior to school on Monday (or the evening before school if school starts on another day) until the following Sunday evening, each alternate week’.
10.Henceforth if one party wishes to take any of the Children out of school during term time then they must have the prior written approval of the other party. If this is not given by the other party then the children cannot be taken out of school.
11.Henceforth the children’s sports kits, scooters, activity uniforms, bike helmets and iPads or other electronic devices are transferred between homes at changeover. The children will also be allowed to transfer anything else they wish between homes at changeover.
12.Paragraph 37 of the orders made by this Honourable Court on 28th January 2022 will be updated to the following:
‘The parties intend that each party will be able to take the Children to Europe to visit their paternal and maternal relatives every two to three years. This will take place during the Christmas school holiday period when the parties each have upwards of four weeks of continuous time with the Children thus not disrupting the other parties time with the children’.
13.The orders made by this Honourable Court on 28th January 2022 will otherwise continue in full force and effect.
14.Each party will bear his or her own costs of these proceedings.
15.Pursuant to sections 65DA(2) and 62B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the particulars of the obligations these orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these orders and details of who can assist the parties adjust to and comply with an order are set out in the Fact Sheet attached hereto and these particulars are included in these orders.
0
3
0