Patterson & Dillard - [2022] FedCFamC2F 465

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Patterson & Dillard [2022] FedCFamC2F 465

File number(s): BRC 14147 of 2020

Judgment of: JUDGE TAGLIERI

Date of judgment: 14 April 2022

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – children – parenting – interstate relocation of children by mother – where father seeks return of children to Queensland – allegations of family violence rejected – equal shared parental responsibility - children settled in Tasmania – father able to have significant and substantial time with children facilitated by funds undertaken to be paid for that purpose by maternal family

Legislation:
Evidence Act 1995(Cth) s140

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss4AB, 60B(1), 60CA, 60CC(2), 60CC(3), 60DA, 61B, 65DAA(3), 65DAC

Cases cited:
A & A: Relocation Approach (2000) FLC 93-035

Aldridge & Keaton (2009) FLC 93-421

B and B: Family Law Reform Act 1995 (1997) FLC ¶92-755

Belfort & Sedita [2021] FCCA 558

Dasreef Pty Limited v Hawchar [2011] HCA 21

Makita (Australia) Pty Limited v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWR 705

Dieter & Dieter [2011] FamCAFC 82

Goode & Goode [2006] FamCA1346

H v W (1995) FLC ¶92-598

Hepburn & Noble [2010] FamCAFC 111

Marvel & Marvel [2010] FamCAFC 101

Morgan & Miles (2007) FLC 93-343

MRR & GR [2010] HCA 4

Re Andrew (1996) 20 Fam LR 538

Russell v Close (Unreported, Family Court of Australia, 25 June 1993)

Slater & Light [2011] FamCAFC 1

Sampson & Hartnett (No 10) [2007] FamCA 1365

Star & Duggan [2009] FamCAFC 115

Stringer & Nissen (No 2) [2019] FLC 93-922

Taylor & Barker [2007] FamCA 1246

Division: Division 2 Family Law

Number of paragraphs: 255

Date of hearing: 17 – 19 January 2022

Place: Hobart

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr M Taylor

Solicitor for the Applicant: BGM Family Lawyers

Counsel for the Respondent: Ms K Mooney SC

Solicitor for the Respondent: Delaney & Delaney
ORDERS

BRC 14147 of 2020

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
MR PATTERSON

Applicant

AND:
MS DILLARD

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE TAGLIERI

DATE OF ORDER:

14 APRIL 2022

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.All previous orders are discharged.

Parental Responsibility
2.The Applicant Father, MR PATTERSON (“the Father”), and the Respondent Mother, MS DILLARD (“the Mother”) (collectively “the parents”) have equal shared parental responsibility for the major long-term issues with respect to the children, X born in 2017 and Y born in 2019 (collectively “the children”) including but not limited to:
(a)the children’s education (both current and future);
(b)the children’s religion and cultural upbringing;
(c)the children’s health;
(d)the children’s names; and
(e)changes to the children’s living arrangements that make it significantly more difficult for the children to spend time with a parent.

3.The Mother and the Father shall consult with each other about decisions to be made in the exercise of their equal shared parental responsibility, as follows:
(a)they shall inform the other parent about the decision to be made;
(b)they shall consult with each other on terms that they agree; and
(c)they shall make a genuine effort to come to a joint decision.

4.Notwithstanding the provisions of Orders 2 and 3 above:
(a)the Father shall be responsible for making decisions for the daily care, welfare and development of the children when the children are spending time with him; and
(b)the Mother shall be responsible for making decisions for the daily care, welfare and development of the children when the children are spending time with her.

Living and Time with Arrangements
5.That the children continue to live with the Mother in the Greater Hobart area in Tasmania.
6.Until January 2023, on a two month cycle commencing in the month of May 2022, the children spend time with the Father as follows:
(i)In Tasmania, on the last weekend during month 1, from 10:00am Saturday or as close as flights allow, until to 4:00pm on Monday (provided the Father can obtain time off work and if not, until 5:00pm Sunday); and
(ii)In Queensland, on the last weekend during month 2, from 10:00am Saturday or as close as flights allow, until 4:00pm Tuesday (provided the Father can obtain time off work, and if he cannot, until 4:00pm Sunday).

7.From January 2023 until January 2025, and continuing the pattern of the two-month cycle referred to in Order 6, the children spend time with the father as follows:
(a)In Tasmania, once during month 1, from 10:00am Saturday or as close as flights allow, until 5:00pm Wednesday (provided the Father can obtain sufficient time off work, and if he cannot, until 4:00pm Monday); and
(b)In Queensland once during month 2 from 4:00pm Friday until 4:00pm Sunday.

8.Between April 2022 and January 2023, in addition to time referred to in Order 6, the children will spend time with the Father for two 5 day blocks per calendar year, at his election on giving the Mother at least 28 days’ prior notice in writing of the dates he will spend time with the children and whether in Tasmania or Queensland, at his election.
9.Between January 2023 and January 2025, in addition to time referred to in Order 7, the children will spend time with the Father for 10 additional days in total per calendar year at his election, on giving the Mother at least 28 days’ prior notice in writing of the dates he will spend time with the children, and whether in Tasmania or Queensland at his election, but the time is not to interfere with the children attending school.
10.From January 2025, the Father will spend time with the children:
a. for half the Tasmanian term 1, 2, and 3 school holidays in either Queensland or Tasmania at his written election, notice of which is to be given to the Mother 28 days prior, with the parents to agree which half, and in default of agreement, the father is to spend the first half with the children; and
b. for 20 additional days in total per calendar year during school terms, at his election on giving the Mother at least 28 days’ prior notice in writing of the dates he will spend time with the children and whether in Tasmania or Queensland at his election, but the time is not to interfere with the children attending school.
11.From December 2025 and each year thereafter, the father will spend time with the children in the Christmas/January school holidays for a continuous 2 week block of time which in even years may include Christmas Day and New Year’s Day but in odd years cannot; and the Father is to give at least 6 weeks’ notice in writing to the mother of whether he will spend this time in Tasmania or Queensland.

Special Occasions
12.Unless otherwise agreed between the parents, the children will communicate or spend time with the parent with whom they are not living or spending time pursuant to these orders as follows:
(a)on Christmas day:
(i)for 3 hours, if the parties and children are all in either Queensland or the greater Hobart area, at times to be agreed in writing; or
(ii)for 1 hour by phone, video-call or face-time if the parties and children are not all in either Queensland or the greater Hobart area, at a time to be agreed in writing.

(b)With the Mother from 10:00am to 2:00pm on Mother’s Day, if the parties and children are all in either Queensland or the greater Hobart area with the Mother to be responsible for collecting and returning the children to the Father, or for 45 minutes by phone, video-call or face-time if the parties and children are not all in either Queensland or the greater Hobart area;
(c)With the Father from 10:00am to 2:00pm on Father’s Day, if the parties and children are all in either Queensland or the greater Hobart area, with the Father to be responsible for collecting and returning the children to the Mother, or for 45 minutes by phone, video-call or face-time if the parties and children are not all in either Queensland or the greater Hobart area;

and for these purposes, the time provided for in Orders 6 to 11 inclusive will be suspended and time will recommence at the conclusion of such special occasions as though there had been no suspension.

Costs of Travel and other means of facilitating the Father’s time with the children
13.For all time the Father spends with the children in Queensland until 31 December 2029 pursuant to these orders:
(a)the Mother and Father will each pay half of the cost of the children’s airfares; and
(b)the Mother will pay the cost of her or any other person’s airfares who accompany the children on their flights.

14.For all time the Father spends with the children pursuant to these orders until 31 December 2029, the Father shall solely have access to expend at his discretion for airfares, accommodation or otherwise, but solely for facilitating his time with the children, the sum of $8,500.00 per annum for the next five years and $4,250.00 for the following two years, which sums Ms B has undertaken to the Court to pay by for this purpose.
15.That the terms of the Undertaking referred to in order 14 are annexed “A” to this order to reflect that Order 14 binds the mother, who is not to seek to use that sum or direct how it is to be used or paid from the account to which the sums are to be paid pursuant to the Undertaking.
16.After 31 December 2029, the Mother and Father will equally share the cost of airfares to facilitate the children spending time with the Father in Queensland pursuant to these orders.

Changeover
17.Unless otherwise agreed between the parties in writing, changeover shall occur as follows:
(a)When the children are in Tasmania, changeover shall occur at a public place agreed between the parties in writing, no more than 5 kilometres of the Hobart CBD and failing agreement, in close proximity (walking distance) to the accommodation of the Father (provided that the accommodation is within 5km of the city of Hobart).
(b)When the children are in Queensland, changeover shall occur at a public place as agreed between the parties in writing and failing agreement, within 50km of the Father’s residence.

Communication
18.The parents communicate (in respect of the children) via the apps Family Album, MyMob, Facebook Messenger or such other way as agreed between the parties in writing.
19.The children are to communicate with the Father by telephone or video call each Tuesday and Saturday, Tasmania Time at 8:30am (or such other time as agreed between the parties in writing) for up to thirty (30) minutes, with the Mother to initiate the call, except when the children are spending time in his care.
20.When the children are in the care of the Father, the children shall communicate with the Mother by telephone or video call each Saturday at 4:00pm, Tasmania Time (or such other time as agreed between the parties in writing) for up to thirty (30) minutes, with the Father to initiate the call.

Travel within Australia
21.Unless otherwise agreed between the parents, the Mother and the Father will be at liberty to take the children on interstate holidays within Australia on two occasions per year, provided that:
(a)Such time will take place during that parent’s usual time (unless otherwise agreed in writing);
(b)The party who intends to take the children on the holiday (“the travelling parent”) will provide the non-travelling parent with at least 6 weeks’ notice (or such other time as agreed in writing);
(c)When providing notice of the intention to travel with the children, the travelling parent will supply to the other parent with:
(i)an accurate itinerary with the date of departure together with, though not limited to, the relevant flight numbers and destinations of travel; and
(ii)a contact telephone number and address at which the children can be contacted in each destination.

Exchange of Information
22.The parents will:
(a)Keep the other party informed at all times of their residential address, and mobile telephone numbers (and will inform the other parent of a change to their contact details within 48 hours of the change); and
(b)Keep the other party informed of the names and addresses of all treating medical or other allied health practitioners who treat the children from time to time, and authorise those practitioners to provide the other parent with all the information the practitioner is lawfully able to provide about the children and inform the other parent as soon as is reasonably practicable and by the best means available of any medical condition, significant health issue or illness suffered by the children and in the event of the child (or children) being admitted to hospital for emergency treatment, treatment by an ambulance crew or being taken to a medical practitioner for urgent treatment following an accident, injury or sudden illness.

23.This Order acts as an authority to all health and medical professionals who treat the children from time to time to provide both the Mother and the Father with all information and documentation sought by them in relation to the children’s welfare and medical treatment from time to time, including but not limited to copies of all reports, referrals, records and documents pertaining to the children (at each parent’s own cost).
24.The Father and the Mother authorise by this Order, and this Order acts as an authority to, all schools (and day care centres) attended by the children from time to time, to provide to each of them all information and documentation sought by them in relation to the children’s welfare, progress and activities at school (or day care) from time to time, including but not limited to providing the parents with copies of school newsletters and other notes/letters to the parties, copies of the children’s school reports, details of the each child’s parent/teacher interviews, copies of order forms for each child’s school/day care photos and certificates and awards obtained by the children (at each parent’s own cost).
25.The Father and the Mother will each be at liberty to contact the educators, teachers, principals, or administrative staff of all day care centres and schools attended by the children from time to time in order to obtain the information referred to above at Order 24, and to attend any school function or event (including parent/teacher interviews, sporting events, fetes, exhibitions, school plays or concerts, religious events, the first and last day of each school year, graduation celebrations and events associated with extra-curricular activities including but not limited to sporting carnivals and/or events) to which parents are authorised or invited to attend for day care, kindergarten and/or school.
26.No provision of this Order will prevent either the Father or the Mother from having either of the children treated, as a matter of urgency, for any sudden injury or acute illness or other medical or dental emergency which may arise in relation to any of the children during their respective periods of care, but in the event of such treatment being required, the parent arranging such treatment will immediately and by the best means available, notify the other parent of the following details:
(a)the name and contact details of the medical professional administering the treatment;
(b)the medical or other complaint for which the child or children were taken to the medical professional; and
(c)any treatment and/or medication prescribed for or provided to the child or children and the reasons for the prescribing or provision of such medication and/or treatment.

27.The Mother engage with a psychological therapist within 28 days or as soon as practicable, to assist her in adjusting to the children spending time with the Father in accordance with these Orders.
28.The Mother and Father will at all times:
(a)Respect the privacy of the other parent;
(b)Speak of the other parent respectfully and refrain from verbal abuse of the other parent and sending abusive or denigrating emails or messages (or communications) to the other parent;
(c)Refrain from any form of denigrating or insulting of the other parent, or their extended family and relatives, in the presence or hearing of the children, and use their best endeavours to ensure that others do not denigrate or insult the other parent or their extended family and relatives in the hearing or presence of the children.

29.The Mother is restrained from relocating the children from living outside the Greater Hobart area of Tasmania, without obtaining the father’s written consent, except if it is to relocate with the children to within 100km of the City C CBD in Queensland.

Passport and Overseas Travel
30.The parties are permitted to travel with the children overseas during periods when the children are in their care in accordance with the provisions of these Orders, only during school holidays, or at other times as agreed between them, provided that neither parent take the children to any location (including to stop over or transit) where there is an Australian Government travel alert in place or any location that is not a Hague Convention Country.
31.For the purpose of the child travelling to an international destination, the parent seeking for the child to travel overseas (“the travelling parent”) shall provide to the other parent, no less than thirty (30) days prior the date of intended travel:
(a)Copies of or confirmation of return airline tickets for the child;
(b)A detailed itinerary of where the child will stay and travel to while overseas;
(c)Contact details (including telephone number(s), address(s) and so forth) for the child at all times while overseas.

32.The travelling parent shall facilitate the child communicating with the other parent by telephone at least twice per week during the period that the child is overseas.
33.The Mother and the Father will sign a passport application for the child, if requested by the other party.
34.If either Party fails or neglects to sign or execute the passport application (7) days of being required to do so, the defaulting party consents to an Application filed by the other Party seeking an Order that the Registrar of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia at Brisbane be appointed to sign and execute such application on behalf of the defaulting Party.
35.The child’s passport be held by the Mother, and upon issuing of the passport the Mother provide the father with a colour photocopy of the passport.
36.The Mother release the child’s passport to the father no later than twenty-one (21) days prior to the intended overseas travel with the Father to return the child’s passport to the Mother no later than seven (7) days after returning to Australia.

THE COURT NOTES THAT:
A.That from 2023 the child X will be attending full time school, Monday to Friday, during Tasmanian Gazetted school terms.
B.That from 2025 the child Y will be attending full time school, Monday to Friday, during Tasmanian school terms.
C.Pursuant to ss.65DA(2) and 62B of the Family Law Act 1975, the particulars of the obligations these orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these orders are set out in Attachment B and these particulars are included in these orders.

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 Patterson & Dillard has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Judge Taglieri

This judgment concerns parenting proceedings between Mr Patterson (“the father”) and Ms Dillard (“the mother”). They relate to two children, X born in 2017 (“the elder child”) and Y born in 2019 (“the younger child”) (collectively “the children”).
The parties and the children all resided in Queensland until the mother moved with the children to Tasmania in mid-2020. The circumstances in which the mother came to live in Tasmania were the subject of factual dispute and will be addressed further in these reasons.
The father filed an Initiating Application on 9 October 2020, seeking final parenting orders and urgent interim orders for the return of the children to Queensland. The children did not return, and instead on 13 October 2020 interim orders were made, by consent, which provided for the father to spend time with the children in Tasmania and Queensland.
On 11 June 2021 further interim orders were made by her Honour Judge Tonkin by consent, for the father’s time with the children. The proceedings were also transferred to the Hobart registry.
On 2 August 2021, I made trial directions and set the proceedings down for a two day defended hearing, commencing on 17 January 2022.
THE DEFENDED HEARING AND ISSUES IN DISPUTE
Both parties were represented by counsel at the hearing and each party had filed a Case Outline. These have been read and considered. The Case Outlines set out the orders sought by the parties and the contentions relied upon.
The Case Outlines revealed that the primary issues in dispute were:
(a)Whether the mother should have sole parental responsibility or if should be joint;
(b)Whether the mother should be required to return the children to Queensland; and
(c)What time the father should spend with the children and where.
Although the mother had initially asserted that the father posed an unacceptable risk to the children’s welfare, this was abandoned. However, the mother maintained that she ought to have sole parental responsibility due to family violence on the father’s part. She no longer pursued orders for the children’s time with the father to be supervised.
The Father’s Case
The father relied on three affidavits which were read into evidence and their deponents cross-examined, being:
(a)the affidavit of the father filed 4 January 2022;
(b)the affidavit of the paternal grandmother Ms D (“the paternal grandmother”) filed 4 January 2022; and
(c)the affidavit of the paternal aunt Ms E (“the paternal aunt”) filed 4 January 2022.
The parties produced a joint tender bundle from which each party identified the particular documents on which they sought to rely. The following documents were tendered into evidence in the father’s case:
(a)Index 3: Extract from Domestic Violence Prevention Centre subpoena, documents dated 23 July 2019;
(a)Index 4: Extract from the F Hospital subpoena, documents dated 20 November 2018;
(b)Index 5: Extract from F Hospital subpoena, documents dated 20 November 2018;
(c)Index 8: Extract from F Hospital subpoena. documents dated 13 August 2018;
(d)Index 9: Extract from F Hospital subpoena, documents dated 14 August 2018;
(e)Index 10: Extract from F Hospital subpoena, documents dated 28 October 2018;
(f)Index 16: Extract from subpoena to Dr G (“the mother’s psychologist”);
(g)Index 17: Extract from Queensland Police Service;
(h)Index 19: Extract from Q University (“Q University”) subpoena, documents dated 13 August 2018;
(i)Index 20: Letter from Department of Child Safety, Youth and Women to Family Court dated 14 October 2020;
(j)Index 22: Letter from Delaney & Delaney to BGM Family Lawyers dated 2 December 2020; and
(k)Index 35: Text messages exchanged between the father and the mother dated 14 October 2016 to 16 October 2016.
In relation to Index 22 of the joint tender bundle, the annexure attached to the letter was initially withheld as it was subject to privilege. At the hearing the parties agreed that part of the annexure be included with the document described at Index 22. It consists of one paragraph of a proposed minute of consent sent on 2 December 2020 to which the mother agreed. The paragraph in question related to phone and video communication between the father and the children, the terms of which were:
Communication
9.That, unless otherwise agreed between the parties in writing, the children shall communicate with the father by telephone or video call on their birthdays, the father’s birthday, Father’s Day, Easter Sunday and Christmas Day and each Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday at 7.00am, with the father to initiate the call.
The Mother’s Case
The mother relied on four affidavits which the Court read into evidence and their deponents were cross-examined. They were:
(a)the affidavit of the mother filed 4 January 2022;
(b)the affidavit of maternal grandmother Ms H (“the maternal grandmother”) filed 4 January 2022;
(c)the affidavit of the mother’s paternal grandmother Ms B (“maternal great-grandmother”) filed 4 January 2022; and
(d)the affidavit of the mother’s treating psychologist filed 4 January 2022.
In the mother's case, the following documents from the joint tender bundle were received:
(a)Index 6: Extract from F Hospital subpoena, documents dated 20 November 2018;
(b)Index 7: Ex tract from F Hospital subpoena, documents dated 13 August 2018;
(c)Index 8: Extract from F Hospital subpoena. documents dated 13 August 2018;
(d)Index 9: Extract from F Hospital subpoena, documents dated 14 August 2018;
(e)Index 10: Extract from F Hospital subpoena, documents dated 28 October 2018;
(f)Index 11: Extract from F Hospital subpoena, documents dated 27 February 2020;
(g)Index 12: Extract from F Hospital subpoena, documents dated 5 March 2020;
(h)Index 13: Extract from F Hospital subpoena, documents dated 19 March 2020;
(i)Index 14: Extract from F Hospital subpoena, documents dated 26 March 2020;
(j)Index 15: Extract from F Hospital subpoena, documents dated 11 November 2020;
(k)Index 17: Extract from Queensland Police Service subpoena, documents dated 22 May 2020;
(l)Index 23: Application for Consent Orders in proceedings BRC15751/2021, filed 30 November 2021;
(m)Index 28: Text messages exchanged between the father and the mother dated 29 January 2020; and
(n)Index 29: Text messages exchanged between the father and the mother dated 24 February 2020.
The parties each appeared to rely on various aspects of the Family Report prepared by Mr J (“the Family Reporter”) dated 21 April 2021 (“the Family Report”). For convenience, his evidence was led by counsel for the father.
Evidence in the Father’s Case
The Father
The following evidence was elicited orally from the father in cross-examination, some confirming and some expanding on the contents of his trial affidavit.
He stated that he is 28 years of age and employed as an allied health worker in Queensland. He lives with his brother Mr K and the paternal grandmother in a home owned by Mr K. The home is a large four-bedroom home with two bathrooms and a double garage. If the children are to reside with the father and when they spend time with him, there is a bedroom in the home for the children.
The father said that he has a good and close relationship with his mother, but his relationship with his father is currently strained. He added that he would like to mend that relationship. He stated that he had concerns about the children spending time with the maternal grandfather Mr L (“the maternal grandfather”). This concern was based on reports made to him by the mother about her relationship with the maternal grandfather, involving witnessing abuse and family violence between her parents growing up.
The father agreed that property matters between the parties had been settled. He was referred to an Application for Consent Orders,[1] and agreed that his gross income, consistent with that document, was $1,615 per week and that his earnings per year were about $78,000 gross. He clarified that the employment referenced in the application had come to an end shortly before Christmas in 2021, so he would be starting new employment. His new place of employment is about half an hour’s drive away from his home.
[1] Index 23 of the joint tender bundle.
Asked if that change in employment would affect the child support assessment, the father indicated that his wage had reduced a little, but he is not sure what the new child support assessment might be. He agreed that he did not own any real estate, did not have children from another relationship, nor was he involved in any business activity in Queensland.
It was put to the father that he was “footloose and fancy free”, so had he considered finding employment in Tasmania in order to be closer to the children. The father agreed with the first proposition stating that was “in terms of commitments”. He added that he had looked at various job advertisements on Seek.com and other employment websites, but he had not applied for any positions in Tasmania.
The father conceded that if he lived in Hobart it would be extremely easy to see the children and spend time with them. He also conceded that he had no commitments in Queensland and that he recognised the benefits for the mother remaining in Tasmania; namely that she had rent-free accommodation, that she did not have to pay any outgoings associated with owning property and that she had the maternal great-grandmother to assist her with caring for the children while she was at work.
He acknowledged that the elder child attends M School, an arrangement that had recently been agreed between the parties. When asked whether the father had been in contact with the elder child’s school and if he was familiar with her teacher, he replied that he had not and was not.
The father was also asked about whether he had established a relationship with the younger child’s day-care provider, and he had not.
Regarding the younger child, noting that he is now two years and six months old, the father said that in his view the younger child should be weaned from breastfeeding, but added that it was not his decision to make. When asked if he had shared this opinion with the mother, he replied that he had not had a conversation with the mother about weaning the younger child.
The father was told by counsel for the mother that if the children were ordered to return to Queensland, the mother’s position is that she would also return to Queensland. The father replied that this was not a surprise. He agreed that this would require her to secure rental accommodation and pay expenses associated with that in circumstances where she was financially strained. He added that he was also financially strained.
In relation to finances, he said that he had a HECS debt of about $30,000. He stated that his legal fees had been paid by his parents and he considers that he should repay that money to them. When asked about the mother also having a HECS debt and owing money to her family for legal fees, the father seemed to concede that this was the case. He also conceded that there was value in the mother having rent-free accommodation and that he had not offered to pay the mother’s rent nor pay a rental bond, should she relocate back to Queensland.
The father said that although he does not yet pay rent to his brother, there had been talk about him paying $150 a week. When asked about the matters referred to in the mother's affidavit from [88] onwards, the father replied that he had read it and that there was a lot of information, not all of which he could recall.
When specifically taken to some parts of the mother’s affidavit, the father agreed with counsel for the mother that the elder child’s speech had improved, but he added that he was concerned that she still struggles with words. He said that he would feel more confident if she saw a professional to assess and assist her. He agreed that he had not raised his concerns with the mother about the elder child’s speech since 2020, notwithstanding that he still held some concerns.
The father was asked about the My Family Wizard parenting app which the parties were to use pursuant to orders that were made by consent in June 2021. He agreed that he does not use the app and instead receives updates from the mother by email, information on Messenger and from a free parenting app My Family Album. The explanation given for not using the app referred to in the Court’s orders was that it involved a fee to sign up and he had not paid it due to his financial circumstances. He agreed that the mother put photographs in My Family Album and that he would view them there.
The father was asked whether he had communicated to the mother that he would not be using the My Family Wizard app because of its cost. He replied he had not, and he conceded that the mother had not known why he was not using it.
Arising from the evidence discussed at [28] to [30], counsel for the mother put to the father that the mother felt that she could not productively communicate with him and asked him to comment. The father stated “I definitely could have raised concerns more frequently with [the mother]”.
Returning to the father’s concerns about the elder child’s speech, the father also conceded that he had not spoken to the elder child’s teacher, but he could have done so. It was put to the father that if he were more pro-active that would be good for the elder child and the father agreed.
The father was referred to the mother’s affidavit at [128] and he stated that in hindsight he agreed that using a communication app would be better and that the communication book was a good idea.
The father agreed that he had known the mother had a history of anxiety and when asked about the mother’s parenting capacity, he replied “[The mother] is a fantastic mum".
Asked about communication between the maternal family and his family at change over, and in particular [18] of the maternal grandmother’s affidavit, the father stated that he tends to close up if challenged and then withdraws. He also agreed that this style was a frustration to the mother and that it was unproductive when dealing with small children.
It was suggested to the father that avoidance was his reaction to uncomfortable situations and he agreed. However, when specifically asked about the maternal grandmother’s affidavit at [32] and [33] concerning a change-over in July 2021, he did not agree that he had turned away deliberately from the mother when she had attempted to pass an unfinished snack to him. By way of explanation, he said that he does not have deep and meaningful conversations with the mother at change over, but instead focuses on the children.
Although the father did not agree with what occurred, he accepted that the children would be confused if the respective families were seen not to be communicating politely and amicably at change-over. The father stated that he still struggled to speak to the mother and that he had to constantly remind himself to be courteous and aware of her feelings, adding this needed to be from both parties’ sides and that he was not actively ignoring the mother.
He agreed that he was nervous with the mother and the accusation that the mother has made about him makes him concerned about being in her presence. The father added that he was consulting Dr N and working with him about this.
The father was referred to the maternal grandmother’s affidavit at [35] concerning her observations about interactions between the families at change-overs in December 2021 and early January 2022. He agreed that at times he turned away from the mother when she spoke to him, but stated that the conversation between the paternal family and the mother had been amicable. The father did not agree that they were cold and disdainful.
Regarding the mother's concerns during the relationship about the elder child's behaviour, said to be sexualised, the father agreed that the mother had spoken to him about it. He said that afterwards, he had been consistent with the management of the behaviours in accordance with advice the mother had been given by the child health nurse.
The father agreed that he was distressed by false accusations that he may have sexually abused the elder child, but when it was put to him that the mother had approached the issue in a child-focused way and with an open mind, the father agreed. He stated “I'm trying to put myself in her shoes”.
When referred to subpoenaed materials from F Hospital reporting the difficulties the mother was having as a first-time parent, the father said that she had been doing really well given the lack of sleep. He agreed that the mother had complained about his lack of willingness to help. It was put to the father that the mother had borne the sole or most of the burden and had struggled, the father replied, “looking back, yes, I could have done more”.
When asked about a progress note in the joint tender bundle,[2] the father said at the time he felt he was helping, preparing meals and doing laundry. He agreed that he did not enjoy doing those tasks, but that he did not refuse to do them. He added that he tried to do as much as he could, but that the mother did not agree.
[2] Index 5 of the joint tender bundle.
The father was asked about the affidavit of the maternal grandmother, to the effect that when she attended to babysit on occasions the father would come home from work and sit playing on the Xbox rather than care for the children.[3] He responded that the maternal grandmother loved being involved in caring for the children and she did whatever she could to help out.
[3] Affidavit of the maternal grandmother filed 4 January 2022 at [17].
He agreed that he definitely allowed the mother to have the run of caring for the children, but he denied that he had stepped back. Specifically asked about evidence that he had told the maternal family members that they could not hold the elder child when she was a newborn, he agreed that he had done so. He maintained that the limit was in line with the parties’ collective wishes. He said that at the time of the elder child’s birth, they had discussed how long they would want people to be at the house, but that it was he who enforced the limits. He denied that it was he alone who stopped the maternal family interacting with the elder child and the suggestion that it was controlling behaviour.
The father was asked about speech therapy the elder child undertook in March 2020 and referenced at Index 5 of the joint tender bundle. Referring to worksheets that were to be used, it was put to him that he did not do any of the worksheets with the elder child. The father replied that he could not recall the worksheets, but he thought he had been supportive of the speech therapy. When asked to give an example, he said that he had encouraged new textures in food. Specifically asked about language strategy, the father could not recall. He conceded that the mother would be best placed to assess if the elder child was progressing satisfactorily with her speech or if there were real difficulties.

About the allegation that if the children were distressed, he would hold them away from the mother and not let her comfort them, the father said that he had read that in the mother’s affidavit, but denied that he acted in that way. Concerning a specific incident with the younger child in January 2020, the father stated that he had been comforting the child after he had accidentally hurt his leg while getting him out of a highchair. He denied that he was attempting to control the mother by holding the child away and stated that the mother had taken the younger child from him. He had then gone to work and did not return until late as he had gone to the gym after work. The father’s response was that he was disappointed and angry with himself and so had stayed away. He conceded that it was in his nature to withdraw.
About an allegation of family violence early in the relationship to which the mother refers in her police affidavit for the purposes of the family violence application,[4] the father stated that he did not know that it had stressed her at the time. He added that it was only later when she raised it with him that he had appreciated that she felt threatened. He did not agree that he had threatened to hit the mother. He said the statement was a playful one involving connotation of intimacy.
[4] Index 17 of the joint bundle book at page 36.
The father admitted that he had used the expression “chubby” to refer to the mother on occasion, but did not recall having spoken to the mother in a derogatory way when he said “you look nice”. It was put to the father that although he thought he was being playful and saying playful things, at the time the mother was fearful. He replied he was not aware of those communication difficulties. He explained that it was not in his nature to be hurtful and when the mother had been pregnant he had found her beautiful.
It was put to the father that there were times when he would ignore the mother and he agreed, but disagreed that he had ignored her for a whole week following a dispute about a birthday party for the elder child. Despite this, he conceded that a person like the mother would find his withdrawal hurtful and that was his way of managing disagreement.
The father denied that he had locked the mother out of the house deliberately, saying on occasion it had been accidental and not to control or manipulate her. He also denied being manipulative around having sex when the mother had wanted a second child and he was not ready. About the allegation that the father had been controlling with the mother’s connections and male friends, he denied this and said he was not jealous.
Asked about the paternal aunt’s affidavit and whether he agreed with her evidence that his relationship with the children was getting more and more cemented over time since separation, the father agreed. However, he qualified this by saying that each time he saw the children there was progress, but then there would be a step back. Given that he knew this, he was asked directly why he did not move to Tasmania. The father replied that there were a lot of factors.
The father was also asked why he had not come to Tasmania when the Family Reporter suggested that the children should stay until the mother completed her study. The father replied that he was asking for the children to be closer to her family, his parents and other family members in Queensland.
As to the factors that influenced him not to come to Tasmania, he stated: financial, emotional, career progression, and accommodation as renting was very expensive. The father agreed that they were the very same factors that impacted on the mother’s decision to remain in Tasmania.
Regarding the implications of the mother returning to Queensland, the father appeared to accept that the maternal grandmother could not have the mother and children live with her. He also stated that it was approximately two hours give or take 15 minutes between where he was living and where the maternal grandmother resides. He agreed that the mother would need to obtain a car if she returns to Queensland as she would want to live in City C where her mother is.
Asked if that meant a four hour plus journey between the parents to facilitate the children spending time with him, he agreed. He also stated that there would need to be a transitional phase and he would need to think about what his proposal would be in that case.
The father conceded that the parties had structured their lives such that the mother would be the primary carer, that he does not communicate well and that his proposal for the children was different to that recommended in the Family Report. Given the last concession, counsel asked if his proposal was based on his view that the younger child should be weaned. The father denied this, but agreed that his views about weaning the younger child were influenced by social stigma. He said he had not taken professional advice about the issue.
The father stated that he had completed the Circle of Security course and was seeking regular support from a psychologist to assist in improving communication and other aspects of his separation from the children.
During re-examination, the father was asked to clarify his proposal for the children should the mother and children live in Queensland in the Suburb O area. He stated that he sought a fortnightly four day/night arrangement from Fridays to Mondays to be adjusted after discussion between the parties once the children started school.
The father also clarified his earlier evidence stating:
·he had been considering moving to Tasmania, but had been offered his current job within two weeks of the New Year, soon after his previous job ended;
·that when the elder child was born, there were general community concerns about whooping cough, and he and the mother were concerned about reducing the risk of that being contracted by the elder child, and so limited her exposure to other persons; and
·in addition, the mother’s labour had been very draining and it had taken a lot out of her, so they collectively had wanted to avoid too many people in the house to solidify her recovery.
The Paternal Grandmother
The paternal grandmother gave evidence under cross-examination. She said that she works day shifts at Employer P, four days a week. She agreed that she had been coming to Tasmania more often than previously as she travelled with the father when he came to spend time with the children.
The paternal grandmother agreed that over time since the children moved to Tasmania, the father’s relationship with the children had changed from distant to close and loving. She also agreed that the parents were both putting their own differences aside and not stopping each other from having a loving relationship with the children.
The balance of the paternal grandmother’s evidence under cross examination was to the effect that she would be available to assist the father in caring for the children and would provide support in whatever way he required. She confirmed that she would be living in the same home as the father and the children if they returned to Queensland and spent more time with him.
The Paternal Aunt
The paternal aunt agreed in cross-examination that the relationship between the father and the children had grown, and they had become closer since their initial move to Tasmania. Questioned about the father’s engagement in caring for the children when the parties were together, the paternal aunt stated that from what she saw the father was actively involved and the mother would step in and take over.
The paternal aunt stated that the father had become a confident dad and that the children went to him calling him daddy and seeking comfort. It was put to the paternal aunt that the communication at handovers between the maternal and paternal families was not easy. She replied that she was polite and friendly with whomever had spoken to her, and that she would smile and respond to the mother.
Evidence in the Mother’s Case
The Mother
The mother stated that she is 27 years of age and is completing a Master’s degree through Q University. She also works part-time at Employer R as an allied health worker.
The mother confirmed the contents of her affidavit to be true and correct and, without objection, gave some additional evidence. She stated that her brother had arrived in Tasmania and was staying in a campervan at the same property occupied by the maternal great-grandmother. She said that that he now wished to live in Tasmania permanently, although that had not been her intention initially after coming to Tasmania.
In cross-examination she was asked about the sequence of events from when she had left the parties’ home to spend time with her mother and later communicated that she intended to go to Tasmania for a placement as part of her studies.
It was directly put to the mother that the father had not known that she intended to stay long-term and that his agreement was only for the children to temporarily move to Tasmania, allowing the mother to complete her placement. The mother’s evidence was that the original plan had not been to remain in Tasmania permanently. She also agreed that there had also been a discussion about possibly relocating to Sydney as her father intended to live there
It was put to the mother that, based on discussions between her and the father after April 2020, he had correctly thought that there was a prospect of reunification. The mother’s reply was that she had told the father unequivocally on 9 June 2020 before moving to Tasmania, that she was separating from him. She was referred to a text message she had sent on 22 July 2020.[5] It was put to her that the contents of the message were inconsistent with her having told the father previously that the relationship was definitely over. The mother disagreed, however she admitted that by August 2020, she had indicated to the father that she would remain in Tasmania until she completed her Master’s degree.
[5] Affidavit of the father filed 4 January 2022 at Annexure -3.
If the children were ordered to return to Queensland, the mother said she would also do so, but would prefer that the move not be until she completed her Master’s degree. Further, that due to an administrative error regarding various units for her degree she would now not complete her Master’s degree until December 2023, whereas if the error had not been made, she would have completed the study in 2022. This evidence was not challenged.
About the nature of her study, the mother said that the Master’s degree was through Q University and was entirely external. She agreed that there was no reason for her to be specifically in Tasmania to complete her study. She also agreed that the study could be done anywhere there is internet connection and that the arrangement she made to do it while in Tasmania was based on lifestyle considerations. Although the mother had already arranged to undertake practical units for her study at Employer R in Tasmania, she appeared to agree that she could do the units in Queensland.
Counsel for the father put to the mother that for the sake of the benefit to the children of having a meaningful relationship with the father and continuing to develop it, it would be better if she were not living 2,500 km away. The mother replied “potentially, yes”.
The mother confirmed that she no longer sought for the father’s time with the children to be supervised. She also admitted that the first time she had made that concession was on 1 January 2022. It was put to the mother that she now accepted that the father was not an unacceptable risk to the children. She replied that she had seen an improvement in their relationship, and that the children counted down to when they could see their father and missed him. It was again put to the mother that she accepted that the father was not an unacceptable risk, and she then agreed.
Asked about her proposal for the father to spend time with the children in Tasmania, the mother conceded that her proposal now was less than that to which she had consented in interim orders. The mother agreed, explaining that the elder child now has school on Fridays.
The mother was asked why she sought a gradual increase to overnight time for the children and father, when she had consented to two overnights in a previous interim order. She said that it related to the younger child breastfeeding at night and that he had not been weaned. It was suggested that the younger child could take a bottle if she expressed breastmilk, but she disagreed saying that he would not take a bottle nor a sipping cup. The mother was pressed about whether the younger child had spent any overnight times without her and she maintained that he had not.
The mother said she did not consider that the elder child is ready for overnight time with the father as there needed to be a normalisation for her being comfortable with days and adjusting to overnight.
Regarding family in Queensland, the mother gave evidence that her sister Ms S lives in Queensland and the maternal grandmother also lives in City C. She agreed that her brother, Mr T, usually lived in Queensland until he went travelling in his van. Asked about how often she would see Mr T on her trips back to Queensland, she stated that she had not seen him for a year, nor had the children.
It was put to the mother that there were a number of important family members for her and the children in Queensland. She reluctantly conceded this, but added there were also important ones in Tasmania, meaning her paternal grandparents. The mother also said that her father had been renting a home in Sydney, but had made an offer to purchase a property in Suburb U in Tasmania. Asked whether her father might have resources to assist her return to Queensland, she replied “he may do, I’m not certain”.
After it was clarified that the elder child would commence full-time school in January 2024, the mother was asked why she did not propose that the children travel to Queensland in the school holidays before that. She replied that she did not want to commit to further time in Queensland before 2024, when she may not be in a financial position to make good on the promise.
The mother agreed with counsel for the father that her proposal did not allow the father to have incidental contact with the children at school and she agreed. Further, it was suggested that her proposal deprived the father from involvement in the children’s extracurricular activities, such as dance lessons. The mother agreed, but commented that he could participate if those events were on weekends when he travelled to Tasmania. The mother also conceded in cross-examination that her proposal:
(a)did not always provide for special occasions such as birthdays to be spent with the father;
(b)meant that if the children needed to go to hospital, the father would not be able to be there to comfort them and that it would be better on such occasions if they could both be present.
When asked about the negative and destabilising impact of travel required to facilitate the father’s time, the mother indicated that she believed the arrangements were working.
Various propositions were put to the mother about the number of nights the father would spend with the children pursuant to her proposal. Ultimately, it was put that the proposal totalled 82 to 102 nights a year. The mother said she agreed, however she had counted the days rather than nights. The mother agreed that this was less than what the Family Reporter had recommended.
It was suggested to the mother that the difficulty of the distance between the father and the children and missed activities implicit in her proposal meant that the father would not have an equivalent role in the children’s lives. The mother said she did not necessarily agree, adding that she knew of parents who parented very well in that way.
The mother initially confirmed her statement at [97] of her affidavit filed 4 January 2022. When challenged, she then clarified that she meant that there was “no effective and productive communication” between her and the father.
The mother said that she could imagine how confronting it would have been for the father to receive correspondence from her lawyers about the allegations of sexual abuse. The mother also conceded that prior to moving to Tasmania, even after she had moved out of the family home, there had been reasonable communication between the parties. She agreed that since coming to Tasmania, all communications had been under the umbrella of the proceedings, with lawyers sending communication back-and-forth. In that context, counsel for the father put to the mother that if the communication was seen as poor, it may have been because of the litigation. The mother agreed, saying that could have impacted, but that the communication before the proceedings was not good either.
The mother stated that because of the terms of the consent orders, there had been little opportunity for the parents to trial co-parenting. It was put to her by counsel for the father that:
·the enrolment form for the elder child to attend child care had been returned signed by the father within a week;
·she had not invited discussion or consultation about which school the elder child would attend, but notwithstanding that the father had simply agreed and signed the form; and
·the father had agreed to her request for the younger child to attend V Child Care and that she had not sought his opinion beforehand. The mother replied that she thought that by informing the father that would give him an opportunity to comment.
The mother agreed with these propositions and when asked if these were examples of effective co-parenting decisions she conceded that they were.
Regarding the elder child’s speech pathology appointments during the relationship, the mother agreed that she had taken responsibility because that was the nature of their relationship and that the father had not stopped her being in charge of this and that he trusted her to do so.
The mother was asked about how equal shared parental responsibility might materially differ from her proposal that she have sole parental responsibility, but that she consult with the father on decisions. The mother stated that the she would want to be the one to make the decision as she had been the primary carer, adding “I know the children better, I have spent their entire lives with them”.
It was put to the mother that she had not communicated with the father about the children’s health since relocating to Tasmania. She stated that she thought she put something in through the communication app. It was suggested to the mother that the communication had been poor from both parties, and it was not just a one-way street. The mother replied “yes, I am aware.”
The mother agreed that there were no imperative decisions to be made about the children in the foreseeable future. Asked if there could be joint decision-making, the mother stated “I would like to make decisions jointly, but I also don’t want to be back in a court room in six months because we can’t”.
The Maternal Great-Grandmother
The maternal great-grandmother gave evidence under cross-examination. She lives in Tasmania, and travelled to Queensland to spend time with the children prior to the mother and children relocating.
Her understanding of the reasons for the mother relocating to Tasmania were that the relationship between the mother and the father was “not good” and that the mother did not feel safe. When questioned about her statement in her affidavit that she made arrangements for the mother and child to live with her for “as long as necessary”,[6] she said that at the time there was no discussion how long that would be.
[6] Affidavit of the maternal great-grandmother filed 4 January 2022 at [15].

Counsel for the father asked at what point discussions had occurred about the mother completing practical placements for her Master’s degree in Tasmania. The maternal great-grandmother’s evidence was that the mother had asked her before the younger child was born if she would be able to care for the children while the mother undertook the practical work 5 days a week. She stated that she works approximately 3 days a week as a self-employed consultant, which gives her the capacity to assist as she could schedule her work around care commitments.
The maternal great-grandmother confirmed that the elder child’s speech has improved since moving to Tasmania, and she has not observed any concerning behaviour from the children. It was put to her that the children enjoy the time they spent with the father; she agreed, and stated that they are happy to see him and she has not seen them distressed.
The maternal great-grandmother was recalled. She stated that she was prepared to give an undertaking to the Court. Her evidence about this was:[7]
MS MOONEY:   […], you wish to give some more evidence to this court about a certain matter? --- Yes, I do.
Thank you. And you have indicated as part of that that you are prepared to give the court an undertaking about certain matters? --- That’s correct.
And are you confident that you have had some advice about what an undertaking to this court entails?   I have, yes.
Yes. Thank you, your Honour. Can you please just do just that, then. Thank you, […]? --- Yes ..... based on the effect that the children seem very settled and happy here and they do need to have continued extended interaction with their father because it has – it is really good and I have seen them talk about it and they chat about it especially X, so it has been positive. If it is a financial impediment to [the father] getting down here, were my granddaughter and the children to remain in Tasmania, I’m prepared to offer up to eight and a half thousand dollars a year towards his travel and accommodation for a period of five years and then for a period of two years after that for it to be half of that because my expectation is that he has had financial issues. His – well, occupational issues, I think. He is – he doesn’t have any assets and after five years, hopefully, with the support of his family – which he has got – he would be in a better position to be able to fund his visits to Tasmania.
HER HONOUR:   Now, in giving me that evidence, […], would you want to restrict or limit precisely how that sum of money is directed? So for example, would you provide a certain amount per trip or would you say it must be paid directly by you to airfares. How would you propose it worked from a practical perspective? --- I had not – I had not thought that through from a practical perspective. I could put it into a bank account and allow him to draw from it or I could – he could, “These are the airfares – these are my airfares”. I could pay. I’m very flexible on how that – that will be used. And knowing airfares go up and down and accommodation I wouldn’t think to restrict it like, “You can only have so much per visit”. I don’t actually want to get in a controlling environment. I just want to be able to make sure it’s available to be used in the manner it should be used.
[7] Extract of Transcript of Proceeding on 19 January 2022, pages 1 and 2.
In light of this evidence and the generosity of the offer, I enquired of the maternal great-grandmother about the maternal family’s capacity to financially assist the mother to relocate back to Queensland if that is what the Court ordered. The question I posed and the maternal great-grandmother’s evidence was as follows:[8]
But my question was broader than that. It was the family’s capacity to assist the mother in relocating if that’s what the court ordered. Would the family be in a position to do that? --- What we have done in the past, your Honour, and what we will carry on doing is assist wherever we can, whether it’s financially or any other means to make sure that Ms Dillard, our granddaughter, and the two children, do not have to put up with any more hardship than they actually have to go through now.
I see? --- Yes.
All right? --- Is that - - -
Well, it’s helpful to a degree. Can I accept that there would be some thousands of dollars that the family could commit to assisting the mother relocate if I ordered that?‑‑‑I – yes, your Honour. Yes.
[8] Extract of Transcript of Proceeding on 19 January 2022, pages 2 and 3.
The Maternal Grandmother
The maternal grandmother gave evidence in accordance with her affidavit. She resides in Queensland, some hours travel from the father’s residence and will soon commence employment as an allied health worker working from her home inn City C.
She confirmed in response to questions from counsel for the father that she has a close relationship with the mother and the children. However, she also gave evidence that if the mother and the children move back to Queensland it is not possible for them to live with her as the spare room in her house will soon be used as her home office.
In reference to evidence about changeovers in her affidavit,[9] the maternal grandmother stated that the elder child is upset at changeover about ninety per cent of the times she is present. She said that this was both when transitioning to the father’s care and returning from it. She conceded that it may be due to the children also being excited to see paternal family members in Queensland and added that there was tension at changeovers. When asked to elaborate on the nature of the tension, the maternal grandmother said that at the last few changeovers, the father has been disdainful towards the mother and that the paternal family have been disdainful towards the maternal family.
[9] Affidavit of the maternal grandmother filed 4 January 2022 at [29].
Referring to articles about the property market near her residence annexed to her affidavit,[10] she agreed with counsel for the father that she has no expertise in the rental market, however she said that anecdotally she is aware of the difficulties due to the experiences of family and friends.
[10] Affidavit of the maternal grandmother filed 4 January 2022 at Annexure -02.
She was challenged that her estimated travel time between her residence and the father’s residence was inflated by traffic congestion at the time she accessed the route on Google Maps.[11] She denied this proposition and stated that if there was congestion it would take longer; this assertion was made on the basis of her own experience.
[11] Affidavit of the maternal grandmother filed 4 January 2022 at Annexure -01.
The maternal grandmother agreed that her relationship with the maternal grandfather ended in 2017. She stated that he had perpetrated family violence against her during their relationship.
The Mother’s Psychologist
The mother’s psychologist had conducted a total of 28 treatment sessions with the mother since November 2019.[12] He prepared a report on 9 November 2020, which was annexed to his affidavit filed 4 January 2022.[13] He deposes that it would be detrimental to the mother’s and the children’s well-being to return to Queensland, but acknowledged that his opinion is limited by the fact that he has not read the Family Report nor consulted with the paternal family.[14]
[12] Affidavit of the mother’s psychologist filed 4 January 2022 at [5], [6] and [9].
[13] Affidavit of the mother’s psychologist filed 4 January 2022 at Annexure -01.
[14] Affidavit of the mother’s psychologist filed 4 January 2022 at [18] and [25].
It was put to the mother’s psychologist by counsel for the father that he has no specialist qualification regarding family violence or child abuse, which he accepted.
When asked about an incident in 2015 identified by the mother as physical family violence,[15] he said that there was an “incredibly remote possibility” that the father’s behaviour was flirtatious. He conceded that he took the mother’s account at face value, however it was clear to him that the mother was still traumatised by it five years after the event. It was put to him that the mother’s recollection may have been informed by unhappiness and feelings of threat which she experienced later in the relationship, and he accepted that might be so.
[15] Evidence of the father at [48] of these Reasons.
The mother’s psychologist was cross-examined about a number of Depression Anxiety and Stress Scale 21 (“DASS-21”) tests which the mother completed. The first in November 2019 at her initial assessment and then two in the latter half of 2020. He agreed that the mother’s scores for stress on the DASS-21 tests decreased over time, and he attributed it to increased feelings of safety due to her geographic distance from the father along with an exit from the dynamics of the relationship.
He stated the balance of risk factors and protective factors for the mother is optimised in Tasmania. A second relocation would, in his opinion, destabilise the mother given that she has had a period of time to establish herself in the community and in her employment. He said that it would be difficult but not impossible for the mother to re-establish herself elsewhere.
The Family Reporter
The Family Reporter gave evidence about his Family Report of 21 April 2021, annexed to his affidavit filed 17 May 2021.
The Family Reporter had interviewed the mother, the father, the maternal great-grandmother and mother’s paternal grandfather Mr W. He also had observed the children, and reported that they both appeared to have a positive relationship with both parents.[16]
[16] Family Report at [157].
Various paragraphs of the Family Report make reference to the mother’s eventual return to Queensland at the end of her Master’s degree,[17] and the Family Report included alternate recommendations based on the children remaining in Tasmania in the short term and then returning to Queensland.
[17] Family Report at [179] and [188].
The recommendations contained in the Family Report are that:
·the children live with the mother;[18]
·the mother travel to Queensland with the children for ten days during each school holiday period, with the children to spend increasing stretches of unsupervised time with the father during that ten day period;[19] and
·the father travel to Tasmania at least twice per school term, during which times the children spend two to three days with the father.[20]
[18] Family Report at [183].
[19] Family Report at [184] and [185].
[20] Family Report at [185].
The alternate recommendation is that:[21]
Upon [the mother] returning to QLD … the children spend time with [the father] each alternate weekend and half of the school holidays.
[21] Family Report at [185].
I queried the Family Reporter’s understanding of the mother’s position as reported to him, given the mother’s evidence that she did not tell him that she intended to return to Queensland and claimed that he misconstrued what she told him. He stated that he could not elaborate further on what is contained in the Family Report other than to confirm that his perception was that the mother’s relocation was for the purpose of her Master’s degree and she would return to Queensland with the children once that was complete. He confirmed that he had no contemporaneous notes of their conversations as he habitually deletes those when he finalises a report.
Counsel for the father put the following assumed facts from evidence to the Family Reporter:
·The father lives in south Queensland and has recently moved into a home owned by his brother, with discussions of paying nominal rent;
·The father’s parents have recently separated and soon the paternal grandmother will be living in the house with the father and his brother;
·The mother and the children have continued to live in Tasmania since the writing of the Family Report, residing near the maternal great-grandparents’ residence in a property purchased for her by the maternal grandfather;
·The mother’s intention is for her and the children to reside permanently in Tasmania, and any comment she made to the Family Reporter about returning to Queensland were only in the context of the Court ordering her to do so;
·In the event that she does return to Queensland, the mother’s preference is to reside near the maternal grandmother, some distance from the father;
·The mother’s studies are continuing;
·The mother no longer asserts that the children are at risk in the father’s care; and
·The mother concedes that the children enjoy the time they spend with the father.
The evidence of the Family Reporter was that his assessment of the benefit to the children in returning to Queensland changed on the basis that:
(a)The mother and the children are settled in Tasmania;
(b)The current situation with Covid-19; and
(c)The comparative high cost of living.
Given that at the time of the Family Report it was foreseeable that the mother and children would become settled in Tasmania even before the completion of the mother’s Master’s degree, counsel put to the Family Reporter that these were not reasons to alter his view. He disagreed with this assertion.
He agreed that a move back to Queensland at the end of 2022, as anticipated by him, would be one which he considered appropriate to further develop and protect their relationship with the father. He stood by [170] of Family Report, which says:
170. The longer [the father] and [the mother] live the distance apart they are now, the further the risk of impact on the children’s capacity to develop an equally meaningful relationship with the other parent, with this writer having serious concerns should [the mother] remain in Tasmania for too long, as [the children]’s ability to develop a secure attachment relationship with [the father] will be severely impacted.
However, he emphasised that the risk would be alleviated by the children spending increased periods of time with the father, stating further that many children live geographically distant from a parent. His recommendation is that the elder child ought to spend blocks of at least seven nights with the father and the younger child three to five nights at least four times a year, given the mother’s concession that the father is not an unacceptable risk to them.
Similarly, he disagreed with counsel for the father that the ongoing circumstances surrounding Covid-19 and the cost of living were the mother to return to Queensland were all foreseeable at the time he wrote the Family Report. The Family Reporter maintained that the expense of relocating, the effects of Covid-19, and the impact on the mother’s parenting, all indicated it was now in children’s best interests to remain in Tasmania.
When questioned by counsel for the mother, the Family Reporter agreed that:
·the improvement in the children’s relationship with the father is evidence not only of the father parenting appropriately, but also the mother encouraging the children’s relationship with him; and
·stress to the mother could potentially affect the children’s ability to form such attachments with the father.
The Family Reporter advised that there is no reason why the younger child cannot spend overnight time with father, even taking account of the fact that he is breastfed. He agreed that the elder child’s time could be longer than it currently is, and that the younger child’s time with the father could increase in the future. He noted that it is not preferable to separate siblings, but sometimes it is necessary to accommodate their individual best interests.
As to the level of conflict between the parents, the Family Reporter said that it is in the interests of the children for that to be reduced. He gave evidence that children can experience stress from birth and during infancy if they witness conflict and hear raised voices, and it can affect their attachments to their parents even to the point of aligning themselves to one or other parent. He recommended that the parents communicate via a parenting app.
Counsel for the mother put to the Family Reporter that it would be in the best interests of the children for the father to relocate to live near the children in Tasmania. He replied that it would be better for the children and their relationship with the father, but he is unaware of the logistics which may influence the practicality of that. He added that the same issues affecting the mother returning to Queensland would affect the father relocating to Tasmania. He stated “it goes both ways” and it not desirable to negatively affect the father’s capacity by requiring him to move to Tasmania.
LEGAL PRINCIPLES – PARENTING
General Parenting Principles
In parenting proceedings, the paramountcy principle applies and the court is required to make orders that are in the best interests of the child/children.[22] Express direction is provided in section 60B(1) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) that this object is to be achieved by ensuring that the child has the benefit of both of their parents having meaningful involvement in their life, to the maximum extent consistent with the child’s best interests. The court is to inform itself of the child’s best interests by the considerations in section 60CC(2) and (3) of the Act.
[22] Section 60CA of the Act.
Section 60CC(2) requires the Court to make orders that are conducive to a child having a meaningful relationship with both parents, but not if this would detract from necessary protection of the child from physical or psychological harm or exposure to abuse, neglect or family violence. The assessment required also involves consideration of the many considerations in section 60CC(3) as relevant to the circumstances of any given case, but there is no ranking of importance or order of consideration of the relevant considerations.[23]
[23] Aldridge &Keaton (2009) FLC 93-421; Slater & Light [2011] FamCAFC 1.
The evaluation of risk of harm required by subparagraphs (a) and (b) of section 60CC(2) is a challenging one to be undertaken on the basis of findings of fact about the nature and degree of risk of harm to the child and the likelihood of it eventuating.[24]
[24] Dieter & Dieter [2011] FamCAFC 82 and Marvel & Marvel [2010] FamCAFC 101.
In addition to the foregoing, the Court is also to apply a rebuttable presumption that it is in a child’s best interests for the parents to have equal shared parental responsibility.[25] This presumption accords with the objective referred to in section 60B(1) of the Act. The meaning of parental responsibility is expressly but not exhaustively provided for in the Act.[26]
[25] Section 61DA(1) -61DA(4) of the Act.
[26] Sections 61B and 65DAC of the Act.
Except in the case of consent orders, if the court is satisfied that the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility applies and is not rebutted it must first consider if the child spending equal time with each parent would be in their best interests and if practicable, make such an order.[27]
[27] Section 65DAA of the Act.
If not persuaded to make an equal spend time with order, the court must then consider whether the child spending substantial and significant time with each parent would be in the child’s best interests and if so and it is reasonably practicable, an order for substantial and significant time should be made. The meaning of the phrase substantial and significant time is provided for in subsection 65DAA(3).
In MRR & GR [2010] HCA 4, the High Court provided guidance in relation to how the provisions in section 65DAA are to be applied and I have had regard to that authority.[28] I am also mindful of the required decision making pathway established in Goode & Goode [2006] FamCA1346. All the considerations in section 60CC are to inform what is in the best interests of a child, which is relevant to making an order for equal shared parental responsibility if the presumption in section 61DA(1) does not apply by virtue of section 61DA(2), or making orders about equal or significant time when the presumption has been rebutted.
[28] Especially at [9], [12], [13] and [14].
Relocation Principles

During this “break”, the father was frequently and regularly spending time with the children and the mother. This and the content of text communications exchanged do not portray the mother being in fear of the father. It is highly unlikely, given her cautious nature, that she would have permitted the father to continue spending time with the children and visit the maternal grandfather’s accommodation where she was staying if she feared him.
For all the foregoing reasons, I have not been persuaded that the father perpetrated family violence towards the mother.
Further, the mother did not pursue claims of abuse or family violence by the father against the children.
DETERMINATION AND ORDERS
These are parenting proceedings with disputes that involve questions of whether the mother’s relocation to Tasmania should be permitted in the long term. I am required to evaluate the competing proposals by the parties concerning all issues in dispute, assessing the relevant considerations, and ultimately determine what is likely to be in the best interests of the children.[79]
[79] At [126] to 137] of these Reasons.
The mother claims that the relocation should be sanctioned permanently and that she ought to have sole parental responsibility because of family violence and other reasons.
I have found that there were likely misunderstandings between the parties arising from their day-to-day life in a household with two young children, with high demands and inconsistent expectations of each parent of the other.[80]
[80] At [180] of these Reasons.
I have rejected the allegations against the father of family violence.[81] The unresolved disagreements, different expectations and style of communication understandably caused tensions. However, while repeated derogatory taunts may constitute family violence,[82] I have found in this case that they were hurtful, but did not cause fear or coerce or control.[83] There is no persuasive evidence of repeated derogatory taunts that might in particular circumstances satisfy the meaning of family violence in section 4AB(d) of the Act.
[81] At [217] to [218] of these Reasons.
[82] Section 4AB of the Act.
[83] At [202] of these Reasons.
Accordingly, no live issue exists about the need to prioritise protection of the children from the type of harm referred to in section 60CC(2)(b) over a meaningful relationship with either parent.[84]
[84] A requirement of section 60CC(2A) of the Act.
I do not accept the proposition advanced in the mother’s case that her perceptions alone of various incidents and conduct by the father, rather than findings of fact based on evidence before the Court, is determinative of whether family violence actually occurred. I was not referred to a specific authority supportive of this. My own review of authority and the statutory meaning attributed to family violence does not support the proposition.
The statutory definition of family violence in section 4AB of the Act provides:
Definition of family violence etc.
(1) For the purposes of this Act, family violence means violent, threatening or other behaviour by a person that coerces or controls a member of the person's family (the family member), or causes the family member to be fearful.
(2)Examples of behaviour that may constitute family violence include (but are not limited to):
(a)an assault; or
(b)a sexual assault or other sexually abusive behaviour; or
(c)stalking; or
(d)repeated derogatory taunts; or
(e)intentionally damaging or destroying property; or
(f)intentionally causing death or injury to an animal; or
(g)unreasonably denying the family member the financial autonomy that he or she would otherwise have had; or
(h)unreasonably withholding financial support needed to meet the reasonable living expenses of the family member, or his or her child, at a time when the family member is entirely or predominantly dependent on the person for financial support; or
(i)preventing the family member from making or keeping connections with his or her family, friends or culture; or
(j)unlawfully depriving the family member, or any member of the family member's family, of his or her liberty.
(3)For the purposes of this Act, a child is exposed to family violence if the child sees or hears family violence or otherwise experiences the effects of family violence.
(4)Examples of situations that may constitute a child being exposed to family violence include (but are not limited to) the child:
(a)overhearing threats of death or personal injury by a member of the child's family towards another member of the child's family; or
(b)seeing or hearing an assault of a member of the child's family by another member of the child's family; or
(c)comforting or providing assistance to a member of the child's family who has been assaulted by another member of the child's family; or
(d)cleaning up a site after a member of the child's family has intentionally damaged property of another member of the child's family; or
(e)being present when police or ambulance officers attend an incident involving the assault of a member of the child's family by another member of the child's family.
[original emphasis]
The terms of subsection (1) of the definition must be satisfied on the evidence. It comprises two alternative elements:
·any behaviour that coerces or controls another family member; or
·any behaviour that causes the family member to be fearful.
Subsection (2) provides a non-exhaustive list of examples of behaviour that may constitute family violence. It does not give family violence an additional or other meaning beyond subsection (1). The exampled behaviours must have in fact occurred, and they must cause fear or coerce in order to constitute family violence. This arises from the plain words of the provision.
I do not ignore that the fact that the mother had some pre-existing emotional vulnerability and experienced some of the father’s remarks negatively. However, I also consider that there was inconsistency between the mother’s portrayal of events when they occurred and during her evidence at trial. The mother has been influenced by her family members to regard her circumstances as the same or parallel to that of her parents’ relationship and their labelling of it as family violence. However, there is no evidence about what her parents’ behaviours were. The maternal grandmother being called, did not give detail. The maternal grandfather was not called.
It is also quite possible that the mother’s evidence has been coloured or skewed to justify her actions in relocating to Tasmania permanently because her family has made it financially and practically inviting to do so. This is not to say that the mother sought to deliberately mislead. Instead, I consider that her memory and interpretation of events is not reliable. Generally, I prefer the father’s evidence, given his willingness to make frank and open concession, even when they did not suit his case. His evidence was also internally consistent.
Not being satisfied that the father perpetrated family violence, the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility applies. There should be an order in those terms. The views of the Family Reporter also support the order being made. Although the father has in the past withdrawn from communication about some issues, the evidence now before the Court demonstrates that he has:
(a)Addressed the trait and sought appropriate psychological treatment;
(b)Capacity to hear the mother’s proposals, for example, about school and childcare, and then cooperates or defers to make joint decisions; and
(c)Is willing to be guided by the mother, whom he accepts:
(i)is a good mother;
(ii)has assumed the primary parenting role; and
(iii)has the children’s best interests in mind when making decisions.
Return of the children to Queensland?
The required assessment in this case is made more challenging because of the factual dispute about whether the father acquiesced to the mother and the children coming to Tasmania only because he understood the arrangement was temporary. There is ample authority for the proposition that the Court usually does not condone unilateral action effecting relocation.[85]
[85] Belfort & Sedita [2021] FCCA 558 citing Morgan & Miles (2007) FLC 93-343 and Stringer & Nissen (No 2) [2019] FLC 93-922.
As the father did not engage in family violence and does not pose an unacceptable risk, the assessment of the countervailing considerations in S.60CC (3) are particularly relevant in the required decision making pathways and application of principles set out at [126] to [137] of these Reasons.
There was an abundance of evidence, most of which was undisturbed following cross-examination, demonstrating that the children are settled, in routines, progressing normally developmentally and are content. This is probably due to the passage of time, the mother’s primary care role including good organisation of the children’s lives and the financial and other support from the mother’s paternal extended family.
This evidence was in effect what swayed the Family Reporter to change his recommendation from that expressed in the Family Report during evidence at the trial.[86] He no longer recommended that the children return to Queensland, essentially because of the settled and stable situation in Tasmania for the children, the practical/financial advantages and the improvement in the father’s relationship with the children. He also considered that the father could continue to have a meaningful relationship with the children by exercising substantial and significant time with them from his base in Queensland.
[86] See [117] to [121] of these Reasons.
By comparison, there was very little evidence of what the children’s lives and arrangements would be like if they returned to live either where the father resides in Suburb AA or in the City C area, closer to the maternal grandmother.
There was some evidence about the home where the father lived and where the children would spend time with him and their paternal grandmother, aunt and cousins. Lacking, was highly relevant evidence about appropriate options for the school/child care the children would attend, what out of school care arrangements could be made noting that the mother may seek employment to pursue her career at some stage, and the location and nature of housing for the children if they lived with the mother in Queensland.
The mother’s case addressed the difficulties with accommodation and the costs of it, the travel time involved to facilitate time between the children and the father if they returned to Queensland. The father’s case did not address if and how these difficulties could be overcome.
Although it might be open to infer that the mother’s extended family would assist financially and practically, perhaps paying removalists or paying rent for the mother, there was no clarity supported by evidence about how they would do so. I consider the onus was on the father to adduce this evidence from the maternal great-grandmother when cross-examined and that did not occur.
The absence of evidence described at [235] and [238], leaves the Court unable to favourably evaluate the father’s alternative proposal. In comparison, the evidence supporting the mother’s proposal was extensive, including providing means to overcome the practical barriers of facilitating the father’s increased time with the children if they remain in Tasmania.
In cross-examination of the Family Reporter and the mother, counsel for the father obtained a concession that it was possible that the mother could make suitable living arrangements in Queensland. This concession of “possibility” in abstract leaves me unpersuaded that returning the children to Queensland, as opposed to ensuring that they spend significant time with the father while living in Tasmania, is in their best interests.
I have preferred the evidence of the father, to the effect that his agreement to the mother and the children coming to Tasmania was on the basis that it was to be temporary and for the duration of the mother’s practical placement. The content of the text message from the mother to the father, despite the mother’s denial in cross-examination, corroborates the father’s evidence that the mother had initially stated that their relationship was “on a break”.
The mother decided not to return to Queensland either before leaving or soon after arriving in Tasmania. It is unnecessary for me to make a finding as to which because, in either case, I am satisfied that the father only agreed to the children travelling to Tasmania and living here temporarily.
For the reasons at [241] and [242] and because I have rejected that the father perpetrated family violence, I have been reluctant to refuse the father’s application to make an order to return the children to Queensland, but the Court is required to make a determination about the children’s best interests now. Regrettably the passage of time and evidentiary gaps has disadvantaged the father’s case.
Accordingly, the Court is not satisfied that it is in the children’s best interests to return to Queensland, noting the findings. As the father does not intend to move to Tasmania, the children are permitted to live with the mother in Tasmania.
There was discourse between counsel and the bench during closing submissions about the power of the Court to make orders requiring a party to live in or relocate to a particular location. Counsel for the mother in essence submitted that the court has such a power, citing Sampson & Hartnett (No 10) [2007] FamCA 1365 and other more recent authorities approving of it. However, she submitted that the power should not be exercised in this case. Counsel for the father in essence submitted that although the Court may have the power, ordinarily it is rarely exercised. He did not submit that the power should be exercised in this case.
As I have concluded that the children should not be returned to Queensland, it is unnecessary to deal with the submissions about the court’s power to make orders that a party live in a particular place. There did not appear to be any material disagreement about the law, but each counsel placed slightly different emphasis on whether the Court should exercise the power in particular cases.
Father’s spend time arrangement with children
The Court is persuaded that the father should spend more time with the children than that contended by the mother, because:
·I accept the updated views of the Family Reporter;
·I am satisfied that the strengthening, positive and loving relationship the children have with the father and that they miss him, will continue to promote a mutually meaningful and beneficial relationship at distance;
·There is no evidence that the father poses a risk of harm to the children;
·I have found he did not commit family violence;
·This will promote the opportunities for the children’s positive and important relationships with the paternal grandmother, aunt and extended family in Queensland generally; and
·The financial and practical barriers to enable more frequent time have been significantly minimised by the court being prepared to accept the evidence of the maternal great grandmother.
The determination that the parents have equal shared parental responsibility requires the Court to consider equal time or otherwise significant and substantial time. There are practical difficulties due to distance and the father’s employment that preclude equal time. However, there should be more time than proposed by the mother to ensure that the father’s time is of a frequency and duration to preserve and promote a meaningful and beneficial relationship for the children as they mature and age.
Opportunity for the father to participate in weekday and extra-curriculum activities should be allowed.[87] As the mother conceded that the father does not pose an unacceptable risk to the children, there will be orders for unsupervised time overnight immediately and gradually building. In addition there will be time and communication on special occasions, Christmas and school holidays once the children are both attending school.
[87] Section 65DAA(3) of the Act.
I do not accept the evidence and submissions by the mother that the father’s time should not immediately progress to overnight time. This was not supported by the Family Reporter and the mother had previously consented to interim orders for overnight time. I found the mother’s evidence about the children not coping with overnight time unpersuasive. Their coping capacity has not been allowed to be demonstrated and the now stronger relationship the father has with them likely means they will cope. The further evidence of the maternal great-grandmother referred to above at [96] supports this conclusion. So too do the views of the Family Reporter,[88] which I accept.
[88] At [120] and [123] of these Reasons.
Regarding the claim that overnight time for the younger child was not possible because he was not weaned, I reject it. No party called expert or objective evidence about this topic. I consider the onus was on the mother to provide evidence to justify her subjective view that he could not now be weaned without detriment. The mother likely needs support to adjust to the children being with the father for longer periods.
The mother’s attitude to longer and overnight time may be influenced by past tendency to anxiousness and habits of being the primary carer to date. As the mother’s psychological state is improved since being in Tasmania, there is no valid reason to limit the father’s time with the children to daytime only. The impact on the primary carer of a parenting order for unsupervised or increased is a proper matter to consider for the purposes of determining what order should be made pursuant to 64B and 65DAA of the Act.[89] However, the factual circumstances of this case are clearly distinguishable to those where courts have been persuaded to limit time or require it to be supervised. There is no compelling expert evidence supporting the mother’s position and I consider that the mother’s concerns are without merit based on findings made elsewhere in these reasons.[90]
[89] Eg. B and B (1993) 16 Fam LR 353 and Russell v Close (Unreported, Family Court of Australia, 25 June 1993) referred to in Re Andrew (1996) 20 Fam LR 538 at pages 543 to 547.
No or limited attention was given in the father’s case to justify making an order restraining the mother from leaving the children in the unsupervised care of Mr L. Despite the submissions in the father’s case outline, the evidence of the mother and the maternal grandmother that Mr L committed family violence is assertion not evidence. It is without factual context or supporting evidence. The mother now has a relationship with her father, and there is no suggestion she would not act protectively of the children.
I am satisfied that she would not leave the children alone with the maternal grandfather if she considered there to be a real concern or threat. Given her concerns and actions about the elder child’s perceived sexualised behaviours, it is evident that she has an attuned radar and suspicion when it comes the wellbeing of the children. I am not persuaded the order should be made.
In the father’s Case Outline he sought orders relating to the issue of passports for the children and provision for overseas travel. The mother sought no orders in this regard and the issue was not agitated during the hearing.

I certify that the preceding two hundred and fifty-five (255) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Taglieri.
Associate:
Dated: 14 April 2022

File number(s):	BRC 14147 of 2020
Judgment of:	JUDGE TAGLIERI
Date of judgment:	14 April 2022
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – children – parenting – interstate relocation of children by mother – where father seeks return of children to Queensland – allegations of family violence rejected – equal shared parental responsibility - children settled in Tasmania – father able to have significant and substantial time with children facilitated by funds undertaken to be paid for that purpose by maternal family
Legislation:	Evidence Act 1995(Cth) s140 Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss4AB, 60B(1), 60CA, 60CC(2), 60CC(3), 60DA, 61B, 65DAA(3), 65DAC
Cases cited:	A & A: Relocation Approach (2000) FLC 93-035 Aldridge & Keaton (2009) FLC 93-421 B and B: Family Law Reform Act 1995 (1997) FLC ¶92-755 Belfort & Sedita [2021] FCCA 558 Dasreef Pty Limited v Hawchar [2011] HCA 21 Makita (Australia) Pty Limited v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWR 705 Dieter & Dieter [2011] FamCAFC 82 Goode & Goode [2006] FamCA1346 H v W (1995) FLC ¶92-598 Hepburn & Noble [2010] FamCAFC 111 Marvel & Marvel [2010] FamCAFC 101 Morgan & Miles (2007) FLC 93-343 MRR & GR [2010] HCA 4 Re Andrew (1996) 20 Fam LR 538 Russell v Close (Unreported, Family Court of Australia, 25 June 1993) Slater & Light [2011] FamCAFC 1 Sampson & Hartnett (No 10) [2007] FamCA 1365 Star & Duggan [2009] FamCAFC 115 Stringer & Nissen (No 2) [2019] FLC 93-922 Taylor & Barker [2007] FamCA 1246
Division:	Division 2 Family Law
Number of paragraphs:	255
Date of hearing:	17 – 19 January 2022
Place:	Hobart
Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr M Taylor
Solicitor for the Applicant:	BGM Family Lawyers
Counsel for the Respondent:	Ms K Mooney SC
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Delaney & Delaney

BRC 14147 of 2020
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN:	MR PATTERSON Applicant
AND:	MS DILLARD Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	JUDGE TAGLIERI
DATE OF ORDER:	14 APRIL 2022