Peacock and Peacock

[2017] FamCA 56

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

PEACOCK & PEACOCK [2017] FamCA 56

FAMILY LAW – INTERIM – CHILDREN – Where the mother unilaterally relocated the children to Town B from the Region C – Where the father seeks orders for the return of the children to the Region C – Where the mother seeks orders that she be able to remain in Town B or in the alternative for certain conditions if orders are made for the children to return to the Region C – Where orders are made for the mother to return the children to the Region C and for the children to live with her and spend time with their father – Where orders are made for the father pay monies towards assisting the mother securing rental property in the Region C area – Where liberty is granted to the mother to make a further interim application to assist her financially to live in Sydney in the short term – Where the final hearing is expedited.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Ms Peacock

RESPONDENT: Mr Peacock

FILE NUMBER: SYC 8322 of 2016

DATE DELIVERED: 7 February 2017

PLACE DELIVERED: Canberra

PLACE HEARD: Sydney

JUDGMENT OF: Watts J

HEARING DATE: 30 January 2017

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Forsters Solicitors

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Sharon Moss Legal

Orders

Pending further order:

1. Subject to any orders made arising from any further interim application the mother makes for exclusive occupation of the matrimonial home at E Street, Suburb D NSW … (“the matrimonial home”) and any other financial relief, the father within 28 days pay $6,000 with the mother to use those funds to assist her to obtain a rental property in the Region C area of Sydney such amount to be categorised by the trial judge on final property hearing as to its treatment.

2. Within 42 days the mother cause the children F born … 2009 and G born … 2007 (“children”) to be returned to live in Sydney in a location that allows the children to conveniently attend H School.

3. The children live with mother.

4. The children spend time with the father:

   4.1.During school terms on each alternate weekend from after school Friday until commencement of school Monday;

   4.2.On Monday each week from after school until 7.00pm;

   4.3.For one half of each school holiday period; and

   4.4.At such other times as agreed.  

5. The parties do all acts and things required to cause the children to be enrolled at, and attend at, H School in 2017.

6. The father shall be able to contact the children by telephone for up to three calls per week. He shall be able to phone the children on the mother’s mobile until she obtains a landline, and then on the landline phone, on Monday, Wednesday and Friday between 4pm – 6 pm or at any other reasonable times.

7. The mother provide an authority to the children’s school and to the children’s treating health professionals to provide to the father all information, reports and other relevant material concerning the children.

8. Each party inform the other party at all times, and in any event within four hours of any illness or accident and of any medical treatment, involving either child.

9. Each party keep the other informed at all times of that party’s mobile and (if applicable) landline telephone numbers and email address and advise the other party within 24 hours of any changes.

10. Each party be restrained from:

    10.1.Speaking critically about the other party or members of the other party’s family in the presence or hearing of the children and from allowing the children to remain present if any other person does so; and

    10.2.Discussing these proceedings and the content of any document filed or tendered in these proceedings with the children.

11. The mother has leave (if she wishes to do so) to file on 14 days notice an application for exclusive occupation of the matrimonial home, that the husband contribute to mortgage payments on the matrimonial home, spousal maintenance and child support.

12. The hearing of the parties competing applications for parenting and property settlement orders be expedited.

13. Pursuant to s 65DA(2) and s 62B Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the particulars of the obligations these orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these orders and details of who can assist parties adjust to and comply with an order are set out in the Fact Sheet attached hereto and these particulars are included in these orders.

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

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Peacock & Peacock has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT CANBERRA

FILE NUMBER: SYC 8322  of 2016

Ms Peacock

Applicant

And

Mr Peacock

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The applicant mother seeks orders that the children G born in 2007 (“G”) and F born in 2009 (“F”) (collectively, “the children”) reside with the mother at her new residence at Town B. She moved to Town B with the children without notice to the father, on 14 December 2016.

2. The mother proposes that the children spend time with their father:

   2.1.During school terms for the first week of each calendar month in Sydney from after school Friday to 5pm Sunday;

   2.2.The father organise and pay for air fares to facilitate this time;

   2.3.In the alternative, if the father gives the mother seven days notice, the trip could take place by way of road with a changeover point at I Town;

   2.4.Three telephone calls per week;

   2.5.Upon seven days notice, one additional weekend per month at Town B with the children from 9am Saturday to 6pm on Sunday.

3. The mother proposed that only F spend holiday time with the father and such times to occur only in terms one and two.

4. During submissions the lawyer for the mother said that if the mother was required to return the children to Sydney, the mother would prefer to be able to come back to the matrimonial home at E Street, Suburb D NSW … (“the matrimonial home”). The mother would not have the capacity to make mortgage payments on the matrimonial home and the father would need to attend to that. The mother made no formal application for exclusive occupation of the home or that the father pay the mortgage and the mother did not future agitate these matters before me. The mother’s lawyer also in oral submissions floated the notion that the mother would like to move to the central coast of Sydney where rentals are lower but no precise proposals were put in that regard. The mother indicated that if an order was made for her to come back to Sydney she would need a month to make those arrangements. If an order was made for the children to return to Sydney, the mother would want an order made for the father to provide her with $6,000 as a cushion to assist in making the move (which is part of the father’s proposal).

5. The father seeks interim orders in the terms set out in Exhibits 1 and 6. The father’s primary proposals are predicated on an order being made for the children to return to the Region C of Sydney. The father proposes that the children be returned from Town B to the Region C area of Sydney within 28 days. He seeks orders that the children attend H School in 2017. In the event that the mother returns to Sydney, he proposes the children live with the mother and spend time with him during school term on each alternate weekend from after school Friday until the commencement of school Monday and each Monday afternoon from after school until 7pm; for one half of each school holiday period and such other times as agreed. The father proposes that he pay $6,000 to a real estate agent upon the mother securing a rental property in the Region C area of Sydney towards rental bond and advance payment of rent.

6. The mother has indicated that if an order is made for the children’s return to Sydney she will return with them. If she does not, the father proposes that the children live with him and spend time with the mother during school terms for one weekend per calendar month in Town B from Friday after school to Sunday; for one half of each school holiday period and at other such times as agreed.

7. In the event that the children are to live with their mother in Town B, the father seeks orders that during school term the children spend time with him on two weekends in Sydney from Friday after school until Sunday afternoon each school term (in default of an agreement on the second and sixth weekends) with the mother to arrange and pay for the children’s flights. The father proposes on seven days notice that he be able to go to Town B on two additional weekends each school term from after school Friday to before school Monday. The father wanted flexibility to pick weekends that might involve public holiday to extend his time with the children. The father wanted an order expanding the options for electronic communication with the children. The father sought that the children be removed from the school at which they had just started in Town B and be enrolled and attend Town B Primary School. The father seeks that the mother be restrained from leaving either child unsupervised in the presence of her brother, Mr J. The father agrees with the order proposed by the mother in relation to telephone time.

8. The father sought other orders which were not opposed by the mother to facilitate him receiving information and having a role in the children’s life if they were to live in Town B. Other orders sought related to information about illness, accidents and medical treatments; ensuring that the lines of communication were at all times current; non-denigration orders and orders that proceedings not be discussed with the children.

BACKGROUND

1. The mother was born in 1966 and the father was born in 1969.

2. In 1998 K, a child of the mother’s from a previous relationship, was born.

3. G was born in 2007 and is currently nine years old.

4. The parties commenced cohabitation in February 2008 and married in 2009.

5. Throughout the cohabitation period the father was a self-employed tradesman.

6. At the time the parties commenced living together, G was about six months old. The father is not G’s biological father but G knew nobody else as his father until after the separation when the mother made the decision, without consultation with the father, to introduce G to his biological father. I am satisfied that G’s biological father has some awareness of the existence of these proceedings and the listing of these proceedings for hearing. He did not appear at the hearing. Given that he has had no contact whatsoever with G until he was aged nine and then only minimal contact for one period at the instigation of the mother, I indicated I would determine these interim proceedings without involving him.

7. F was born in 2009 and is currently seven years old. 

8. Between 2009 and 2013 the mother ran her own business from the matrimonial home.

9. In 2013 the mother obtained a part time job, leaving that job in 2015 for part time work for another employer. The mother says at the time she moved from Sydney she was getting about 20 hours a week work at $20 an hour ($400 per week). 

10. On 19 September 2015 the parties separated and the mother moved out of the matrimonial home with K, G and F. Immediately following the separation the mother and the children continued to live in the Region C area consecutively in two rental properties and the father remained in the matrimonial home in Region C. The mother’s rent for the first of these two properties was $800 per week and her brother lent her $30,000. At the time of the separation, the father did not agree to move out of the matrimonial home and the mother says did not offer any financial support to the mother.

11. At the time of the separation the mother had a credit card debt of $12,000 which she said had been incurred to pay for improvements to the matrimonial home.

12. There is some disagreement between the parties as to the precise amount of time the children spent with their father following separation. The father asserts that following the separation there was an ad hoc arrangement in place and the mother would often change times that had been agreed to. The father asserts that from August 2015 until December 2016 F spent time with him on alternate weekends from after school Friday until the following Monday morning and on every Monday after school when the father took F to the gym or to go swimming. The mother says that immediately prior to her relocation with the children, F spent time with the father on alternate weekends from Friday after school until usually Sundays and sometimes until before school on Monday mornings. The father says that G spent two to three days per month with him prior to the mother’s relocation. The mother asserts that prior to the relocation, G spent time with the father about one night a fortnight. On either version, the children were spending consistent time with the father prior to the mother’s move to Town B.

13. On 8 December 2016 the father was assessed to pay child support for F at a rate of $21.54 per week.

14. On 14 December 2016 the mother left Sydney with G and F to move into a house at L Street, Town B. It is not contentious that the mother’s move was unilateral and without notice to the father. There is evidence that the move was premeditated. The mother lodged, without notice to the father, an application dated 1 August 2016 for both children to be enrolled in the M School in N Town. In that application the mother gave the names of each of her brothers, Mr O and Mr P, who live in the region, as the persons to contact in an emergency if she was unavailable.

15. At paragraph 3 of the mother’s affidavit of 24 January 2017, she quite candidly says:

    I did not let [the father] know that I was moving with the children to [Town B]. If [the father] had known earlier, I was concerned that he would not let the children leave with me.

16. This is a recognition by the mother that had she given notice of her intention to move to the father, he would have opposed it and the court would have had to decide on an interim basis whether to allow it.

17. The mother communicated with the father about the move early in the morning after the night she arrived in Town B. On the same day, the mother served upon the father’s lawyers the current application that she be able to relocate to Town B.

18. Whilst there is no direct evidence as to the distance and travel time between the matrimonial home and the mother’s new residence at Town B, the lawyer for the mother said his instructions were it was a five hour road journey whereas the lawyer for the father indicated that a Google search reveals that it is a seven hour road trip of 500 kilometres in length.

19. Prior to the mother and children leaving Sydney, both children attended H School.

20. Since the mother’s move to Town B the children have spent the following time with the father:

    28.1.2 – 11 January 2017 (9 days);

    28.2.18 January 2017;

    28.3.20 – 21 January 2017 with F;

    28.4.21 January 2017 with G; and

    28.5.22 January 2017.

DISCUSSION

1. Both parties agree that it is in the children’s best interests that as far as is possible, the children have an ongoing and meaningful relationship with the father.

2. The mother was the children’s primary caregiver with the father playing a subsidiary role to the mother in caring for the children. There seems no dispute that the children have an excellent relationship with their mother although the father makes some complaints about her style of parenting. The mother describes herself as protective of the children and someone who is anxious to avoid the children being exposed to any emotional or physical risk. The mother asserts that G’s relationship with the father has been affected by physical abuse/discipline.

3. Part of the mother’s material, which is contested, seems to suggest that the mother is of the view that the children could be at some risk of being subjected to or exposed to abuse, neglect or family violence in the father’s household if they were to live with the father on a full time basis (but not if they were to live with their father during the more limited periods of time suggested by the mother). The mother says that her concerns are consequent upon her experience of the father’s conduct over a long period of time and include examples of physical and psychological abuse of herself and the children. She asserts that the father is a regular drinker and has a history of losing his temper from time to time whilst he drinking.

4. The only corroborative piece of evidence in relation to the father’s drinking is the father’s driving record which indicates the father was convicted of a mid-range PCA in 1998. Whilst the father accepts that he “had some beers” in the relationship, he denies that he drank to excess. Further, in relation to the father’s consumption of alcohol being problematic, the father relies upon Exhibit 5 which is a report by Ms Q, psychologist, dated 5 February 2015. That is a report by a psychologist in relation to treatment of the mother. The psychologist reports that the mother presented with symptoms of depression and anxiety and tension in the party’s relationship. The assessment included a thorough review of the history of the symptoms and of the relationship. The key relationship difficulty was struggles between the mother and the father in managing parenting differences. The psychologist rated the mother’s anxious relational sensitivities as high. The psychologist reports on the mother’s tendency to be over protective of the children and that that arose out of patterns within the mother’s family of origin. The father was involved in this counselling. It was reported that the father attempted to manage the conflict in the marriage by distancing himself from the tension so that it did not escalate. The psychologist reflects that that led to harmony in the short term but intensified feelings of frustration for the mother and resulted in angry outbursts and increased tension between the two of them. The psychologist reports polarised positions between the parties in relation to parenting and I accept that the parties have very different parenting styles. The point the father makes is that there is nothing in the discussions in marriage counselling as reported by the psychologist that specifically refers to difficulties arising from his consumption of alcohol. I note the mother has sought no order for supervision when the children are with their father nor any order restricting the father’s consumption of alcohol whilst the children spend time with him. The father disputes his use of alcohol created risks to the children arising from his parenting. I am unable in the context of this hearing to make findings as to any risk the father might pose to the children.

5. The mother asserts that the father inappropriately disciplined the children and again in the context of an interim hearing I have no ability to make any finding about those assertions. There is one piece of objective evidence however that I take into account. Exhibit 4 is records from Dr R, a general practitioner. The mother consulted Dr R on 27 August 2015. The doctor records the mother made “revelations of domestic violence”, namely that the father was hurting the children. The doctor records:

   husband is hurting the children she says – no bruises or fractures but he wants to hit them and sometimes throws them or makes bruises on their arms by holding them roughly

   Emotional abuse by partner – bullying

1. The doctor indicated that she contemplated that she would need to make a mandatory report to child welfare authorities that the father was physically abusing the children. The notes go on to indicate however that the doctor telephoned the parties’ therapist, Ms Q, who had been seeing the parties in couple counselling. Dr R records that she was told by Ms Q that she had heard about these fears from the mother and Ms Q opined that the mother’s fears were exaggerated from her own background of physical abuse. There was an agreement between the two professionals that the children appeared safe and well and have not reported with injuries. A decision was consequently taken not to make a mandatory report based upon the mother’s assertions.

2. I have no independent evidence of the children’s views. The mother accepts that the children do want to spend time with their father. The father points to some text exchanges between him and G on 20 December 2016 where G indicates that he misses his father and asks his father when he can come back. The mother asserts that some views expressed by the children may have been as a result of coaching by their father.

3. The mother asserts that the children have a good relationship with their maternal uncles. The mother gives evidence that Mr O has been providing financial support to allow her to get by. Whilst the mother points to the positive relationship the children have with her two brothers, the father points to the mother’s brother Mr O’s criminal record which includes convictions for common assault in 2012, three mid-range drink driving offences and a conviction in 2012 for cultivating a prohibited plant.

4. Whilst the mother reports a reluctance in the children to go and spend time with their father, the objective history is that they have spent time with him and there has been no systematic pattern of difficulties with them doing so.

5. The mother points to the fact that she has facilitated the children’s time with their father since the separation and before the move to Town B and subsequent to the move to Town B. There seems little issue that the mother has arranged with the father for him to have unrestricted telephone access with the children and for the children to spend the times with the father I have set out above during the January school holidays.

6. The mother asserts that the father has not taken up all opportunities that have been made available to him to spend time with the children since separation.

7. The mother asserts that the father acquiesced in allowing the mother to make most of the long term decisions concerning the children apart from the children’s schooling at H School.

8. The mother asserts that there are practical difficulties with the father’s alternative proposal that he have the full time care of the children arising from his work commitments. The father responds by saying that being a self-employed tradesman, he has flexibility in his working hours and also has the assistance of his mother who lives close to the matrimonial home. The father sets out his concerns in relation to the mother’s parenting capacity (whilst conceding that the children should primarily live with her). I am happy to conclude on the evidence that both parties have different parenting styles. The mother, I accept, has a more laissez-fair attitude to parenting whereas the father places more boundaries upon the children.

9. One of the father’s concerns is the children’s absences from school last year which the mother seems to dispute. The objective documentation would indicate a significant rise in absences by both children between semester one 2016 and semester two 2016.

10. The lawyer for the mother submits that given that the children have had three moves in 17 months, an order bringing the children back to Sydney will be four moves within 17 months. Whilst I acknowledge the disruption to the children, there must be some bounds on the weight that can be placed on a consideration that the mother asserts is detrimental to the children which is of her own unilateral making.

11. The mother asserts that G has been having difficulties with literacy and numeracy. She asserts that she has obtained a position teaching at the children’s school and asserts that she will be able to consequently more adequately attend to G’s educational needs. That assertion cannot be sustained on the evidence that has been provided.

The mother’s unilateral approach to parental responsibility

1. The mother’s relocation had no regard to the father’s role as a parent in making decisions about the children. Whilst there was no order for equal shared parental responsibility (and s 61C of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) does not stop either parenting acting unilaterally in making major long term decisions in respect of the children), it is not in the children’s best interests for one parent to make unilateral decisions about two major long term issues, namely the school at which the children will attend and changes to the children’s living arrangements that make it significantly more difficult for them to spend time with a parent, without first consulting and attempting to reach a genuine agreement with the other parent.

2. The issue in relation to schooling is not just that the mother has taken the children out of the school in which they were enrolled and moved them to another school (for that was a consequence of her other decision to move 500 kilometres away), but it was also a decision to place the children into a school with a different educational philosophy to the one the children had previously been experiencing. The father objects to the children being at their current school because as he understands it, a Steiner school offers a free form of education and the father is concerned that the children’s discipline will suffer.

3. Whether or not the decision to start the children at a Steiner school is in the children’s best interests I am unable to say, but it is not one in respect of which the father was consulted and consequently had no chance to express a view about this change before it happened.

4. Another example of a major decision being made by the mother without consultation with the father was the mother’s unilateral decision to introduce G to his biological father in circumstances where the mother well knew that the father had concerns about that (see the mother’s affidavit filed 14 December 2016, particularly at paragraph 117). The father has concerns that G’s biological father is a drug dealer.

5. There is no order sought by either party for equal shared parental responsibility and consequently there is no mandatory requirement to consider equal time or substantial and significant time.

The mother’s ability to stay in Sydney and the father’s ability to support that happening

1. In September 2015 the mother signed a lease at $800 per week on the upstairs half of a property in S Street. She borrowed $10,000 from her brother Mr O to cover the cost of the bond. The mother’s income at the time of the separation was $450 per week from part time teaching.

2. In March 2016 the mother received a notice from the landlord of the S Street property because where she was living in that property was not council approved. She found another rental property for $900 per week at Suburb D in April 2016 which the mother said was the least expensive freestanding home in Suburb D available. The children have a dog of which they are fond. At that point in time the mother’s brother Mr O lent her a further $10,000.

3. The property in which the mother was living at Suburb D was sold in October 2016 and the new owners wrote to the mother indicating that they understood she was having difficulties paying the rent and requesting her to vacate the property early (I infer the lease was for 12 months to March 2017). The mother agreed to move out early.

4. It is the mother’s contention that by the end of 2016 she could not afford to continue to reside in Sydney and only met her expenses after the separation while living in Sydney through borrowing from her brother Mr O. She asserts that by December 2016 she was running out of money and facing the prospect of being evicted from her leased home at Suburb D and then having nowhere to live.

5. The mother gives evidence that she had an offer from her brother Mr Ps to reside in the vacant three bedroom house he had recently purchased in Town B. The mother decided that from a financial point of view it was in the best interests of the children to take up that offer.

6. The mother asserts that she searched the rental market in Suburb D on domain.com.au and realestate.com.au and the least expensive three bedroom house which she saw advertised in Suburb D was $1,100 per week.

7. The father at paragraph 104 of his affidavit says that he believes there is accommodation available in Suburb T and the surrounding areas for about $650 per week and he encloses searches from realestate.com.au. There is a house that is advertised at $670 per week. Some of the searches are of three bedroom apartments and it is unclear to me as to whether or not they would be suitable to accommodate the children’s dog.

8. The father submits that there is no evidence in the mother’s material to explain why it is she is unable to work on a full time basis in Sydney. The children are both of school age. The mother has professional qualifications . I would infer that if she was able to obtain employment in that capacity, she would be required to work during school hours. It does not seem contentious that the mother, being the primary carer of the children, did not have full time employment during the marriage and has not had full time employment since the parties separated. In December 2016 she was working on a casual basis. At the time the mother moved from Sydney, she worked on a casual basis in Suburb U and in Suburb D. The mother observes that both employers closed down over Christmas and she would have received no income in that period.

9. Notwithstanding the mother’s assertion of the financial hardship she was in that drove her to leave Sydney, she has not set out evidence that would enable me to make any real assessment of her earning capacity. In a financial statement filed by the mother on 14 December 2016 at item 2, the mother says her total average weekly income is $944.10. However, the particulars given in Part D would indicate that her only source of income is Government benefits of $644.10 per week. The mother’s financial statement does not include any reference to any income that she was earning prior to her move to Town B. The wife’s affidavit, whist indicating that she currently now has permanent part time employment does not disclose the amount of income that she is earning from that employment. It is consequently a difficult exercise to determine, based on the evidence the mother has provided, the comparative financial situation of the mother being in Sydney as being compared to being in Town B. I accept that an inference might be drawn that the mother’s position in Town B would be superior given that she has rent free accommodation in Town B but it may well be that the mother’s job opportunities in Sydney are far greater than the ones that are available to her in Town B.

10. The father at annexure G to his affidavit provides searches that he has done in relation to possible employment opportunities in the Region C area that the mother might have as a teacher in excess of $60,000 per annum. I have no way of assessing whether or not the mother would have any realistic prospect of obtaining employment within that range.

11. The mother asserts that her current overall debt to Mr O is at least $30,000.

12. The father’s earning capacity and his ability to contribute to the maintenance of the family is a mystery. He is a tradesman who is a subcontractor. The lawyer for the father says that the low level of his income (quoted at $400 per week) is because the father’s work is dependent on what he gets; that he is not in full time employment; he has been receiving family assistance to make ends meet and that these proceedings make it somewhat difficult for him because of the time he has been engaged in them and the anxiety arising out of the separation of the court proceedings. The father has not filed tax returns since 2015. The lawyer for the father told me that the father was optimistic that following the end of the litigation he might be able to turn things around in his work.

13. The mother asserts that whilst cohabiting with the father she assisted him with his books and she observed that he was earning about $2,000 per week from his building business, Peacock Pty Limited.

14. I have no financial records before me that would help me understand what the father’s financial position is in reality. It seems that the equity in the matrimonial home may be in the order of $600,000.

15. The father has not paid child support even at a level of $21.54 per week since August 2016.

Conclusion

1. I accept the mother has formed the view that it is in the children’s best interest to move to Town B because she has formed the view that that will lead to a more permanent home environment for the children. The move however fundamentally disrupts the time during which the children can maintain the benefit of having a meaningful relationship with their father.

2. The mother asserts and I accept that since separation the financial burden of supporting the children has been borne almost completely by her.

3. The mother says that financially she had no choice but to leave Sydney and that she had a responsibility to care for the children and the only way that she could house them was to move to Town B but her evidence does not establish that assertion.

4. The mother should have waited for the court to make a determination before unilaterally moving the children.

5. I find that having considered all relevant matters, it is in the children’s best interests in the interim for them to return to the Suburb D area with the mother to live within a radius of Suburb D that would allow the children to have regular weekly time with their father and return to Suburb D Public School.

6. Both parties agree the father would pay $6,000 to a real estate agent upon the mother securing a rental property in the Region C area of Sydney toward rental bond and advance payment of rent such amount to be categorised by the trial judge on final property hearing as to its treatment.

7. However, that order will be subject to the mother being granted leave (if she wishes to do so) to file within 14 days an application for exclusive occupation of the matrimonial home, that the husband contribute to mortgage payments, spousal maintenance and child support.

8. As indicated to the parties, it is my intention that I will make an order to expedite the final hearing in relation to parenting and property matters. The parties have on its face very limited assets. It may well be that when the matter is fully considered, the best arrangement will be to allow the mother to move to Town B. Certainly the court would need to know substantially more about what the mother’s financial capacity is and what the father’s financial capacity really is in terms of being able to provide ongoing support to maintain the mother and children in Sydney.

I certify that the preceding seventy-two (72) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Watts delivered on 7 February 2017

Associate: 

Date:  7.2.2017