ROBARDS & MILLER

[2015] FamCA 488

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ROBARDS & MILLER [2015] FamCA 488

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – RELOCATION – Best interests – Where the ten year old child lives with the mother in Town X – Where the child spends each alternate weekend with the father in Canberra – Where the mother seeks to relocate with the child to North Queensland – Where the mother says she cannot find suitable employment in Town X – Where the father has disengaged from the proceedings –Where the mother has accepted primary responsibility for the travel costs associated with the child spending time with the father – Where it is found that the child would continue to maintain a meaningful relationship with the father after relocation – Where it is found that it is in the child’s best interests that the mother be permitted to relocate with her.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 10G, 60CC

APPLICANT: Ms Robards

RESPONDENT: Mr Miller

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Legal Aid NSW Wollongong

FILE NUMBER: SYC 3337 of 2009

DATE DELIVERED: 12 June 2015

PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney

PLACE HEARD: Sydney

JUDGMENT OF: Rees J

HEARING DATE: 9 June 2015

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Ms Doosey

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Rossi Simicic Lawyers

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: N/A – In person – No appearance

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Mr Ladopoulos

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Legal Aid NSW

Orders

1. That these Orders become effective from 12 January 2016 and that all previous parenting orders be discharged from that date.

2. That the parents have equal shared parental responsibility for the child M (born … 2005) (“the child”).

3. That the child live with the mother.

4. That, conditional upon the maternal grandfather Mr J Robards providing an undertaking to the Court that he will pay for up to sixteen (16) one way flights between Town Z and Canberra and/or Canberra and Town Z per calendar year for the child, the mother is permitted to relocate the child’s residence to the Town Z region, Queensland from 12 January 2016.

5. That, unless otherwise agreed to between the parents in writing (including via email and text message), from 12 January 2016 the child will spend time with the father as follows:-

   (a)For one (1) weekend in each Queensland school term, commencing on the fifth Friday of each Queensland school term period, from Friday until Monday, and times will vary according to air fare availability, but unless as otherwise agreed in writing, flight times departing Town Z should not be before 2.00 pm and flight times departing Canberra should not be before 2.00 pm;

   (b)For eleven (11) nights during each Queensland school holiday period at the end of Terms 1, 2 and 3; commencing on the first Monday following the conclusion of school term;

   (c)For twenty-one (21) nights of the Queensland Christmas school holiday periods that start in odd numbered years, commencing on the day following the last day that the child attends school; and for eighteen (18) nights in the second half of the Queensland Christmas school holiday periods that start in even numbered years, commencing on 2 January; and

   (d)At such other times as are agreed to between the parents in writing (including via email and text message), with the child to spend time with the father in Canberra, Town Z or any other agreed location.

6. That in order to facilitate Orders 5(a) to 5(c) above:

   (a)The mother is responsible for arranging and for the payment of the cost of the child’s air fares from Town Z to Canberra and her return from Canberra to Town Z on the child’s trips to spend time with the father on the fifth weekend of each school term and in the school holidays;

   (b)That in the event the child spends additional time with the father at times as agreed to between the parents pursuant to Order 5(d), then the father will be responsible for both arranging and paying for such flights and any necessary accommodation costs;

   (c)Each party must provide to the other, no less than fourteen (14) days before the event, written notice (including via email or text message) of the travel arrangements they have made, including flight details and airline contact information and, once applicable, written/email confirmation from the airline that the child has been booked to fly as an ‘unaccompanied minor’;

   (d)The parents are to immediately notify each other in the event that the child is unable to make her prearranged flight, and that the parents will then take all necessary steps to ensure the child takes the next available flight, with any additional costs to be borne by the parent with whom the child is with, unless otherwise agreed to;

   (e)On all occasions the child travels between Town Z and Canberra to spend time with the father, the mother or her agent will deliver and collect the child to and from Town Z Airport or Brisbane Airport;

   (f)On all occasions the child travels between Town Z and Canberra to spend time with the father, the father or his agent will deliver and collect the child to and from Canberra Airport; and

   (g)At any time the child travels as an ‘unaccompanied minor’:-

   (i)The parents or their agents are to do all acts and things necessary, and to follow any directions given to them by airline and/or airport staff, to ensure that the child is able to take the flights from Town Z to Canberra, and from Canberra to Town Z, unaccompanied;

   (ii)The parent who is responsible for delivering the child at the departure airport is to ensure that the other parent is notified as soon as possible by text message that the child has checked in; and

   (iii)The parent who is responsible for collecting the child at the destination airport is to ensure that the other parent is notified as soon as possible by text message that the child has arrived.

7. That the child have liberal and flexible communication with the father (and with the mother when the child spends time with the father) by telephone, Skype, text message, email, in writing and any other form of communication as agreed at any reasonable times.

8. That the parents are each to ensure that the other parent is kept informed as soon as is reasonably practicable of:-

   (a)any medical emergencies, serious medical problems or illnesses suffered by the child;

   (b)any medication that has been prescribed for the child that needs to be taken while the child is in the care of the other parent;

   (c)any specialist medical appointments with any medical doctor, psychiatrist, psychologist, counsellor or therapist regarding the child;

   (d)the contact details for any medical practitioner, health service provider or institution attended by the child, as well as any sporting body or extra-curricular organisation the child becomes involved with;

   (e)the residential address, telephone contact number and email address of the parent (with any change to be notified within forty-eight (48) hours); and

   (f)any other matter relevant to the welfare of the child.

9. That both parents must provide to any medical practitioner, health service provider or institution attended by the child any authority or direction necessary to enable the other parent to obtain all necessary information concerning the child.

10. That both parents are permitted to liaise directly with the child’s school(s), sporting bodies and/or any other extra-curricular organisation to obtain any necessary information about the child’s progress and that both parents must authorise the school(s), sporting bodies and/or other organisations to facilitate this.

11. That these Orders provide the necessary authorities to the Principal of each school attended by the child to ensure that the school forwards to both parents copies of the child’s school reports as they fall due along with copies of all school circulars, newsletters and invitations to any school activities which parents are invited to attend.

12. That both parents are restrained from making critical or derogatory remarks about each other or members of each other’s family (including in writing) in the presence or within the hearing of the child and that both parents are to do all things reasonably necessary to ensure that no other person makes any critical or derogatory remarks about either parent or members of their family (including in writing) in the presence or within the hearing of the child.

13. In the event that the parents cannot come to a shared decision about a major long term issue as set out in Order 2 above, they are to both do all things necessary to participate in family dispute resolution with a person authorised under s 10G of the Family Law Act1975 (Cth).

14. That pursuant to s 62B and s 65DA(2) 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 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.

Notation

1. It is the mother’s intention that she will accompany the child on all flights to and from Canberra for the first six months following the making of these Orders and, thereafter until such time the child turns twelve (12) years old, that she will accompany the child from Town Z to Brisbane and on her return flight from Brisbane to Town Z and that she will be responsible for the costs associated with her travel with the child.

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

FILE NUMBER: SYC 3337 of 2009

Ms Robards

Applicant

And

Mr Miller

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. M (“the child”) was born in 2005 and is now ten years old.  Her parents are Ms Robards (“the mother”) and Mr Miller (“the father”).

2. At the present time the child lives with her mother in Town X and spends time with her father, who lives in Canberra, each alternate weekend and for half of the school holidays.

3. The application before the Court is the mother’s application to relocate with the child to Town Z in far north Queensland. The father has chosen not to participate in the hearing of the application.

History

1. The mother has a child of a previous relationship, K, who is 16 years of age.  K lives with his father in Town Y and spends time with the mother during school holidays.

2. The father has re-partnered and lives with his current partner in Canberra.  The father’s partner has two children, T aged 14 and N aged 12.  The father and his partner have a child, O, who is one year old and are expecting another baby in September.

3. The father and mother commenced a relationship in 2003 and began to live together in November 2004.  The child was born in 2005.  In about July 2005 the father and the mother separated but they continued to live under the same roof until September 2005.

4. In March 2006 they reconciled and the father took up employment in Canberra, travelling to Canberra on Monday morning and returning on Friday night to live with the mother and the child in Town X.

5. In June 2006 they again separated.  In March 2008 they reconciled until 23 October 2008 when they separated on a final basis.  From the time of the first separation until the final separation the father’s time with the child was sporadic and the mother was her primary carer.

6. On 9 June 2009 Orders were made by consent in the Family Court providing for the parents to have equal shared parental responsibility for the child and for her to spend time with the father each alternate weekend, during school holidays and on special occasions. 

7. Since the making of those Orders, with the exception of a period in 2012 to which reference will be made later in these Reasons, the father has spent time with the child in accordance with the Orders, driving from Canberra to Town Y to collect her, returning to Canberra with her, driving her back to Town Y and then driving back to Canberra, each alternate weekend and for the purpose of holiday time.

8. The mother, having returned to work when the child was four weeks old, was primarily employed in hospitality.  In October 2010 she commenced working as a duty manager at a hotel which required her to work night shifts with consequent difficulties in arranging suitable care for the child. 

9. In about November 2011 the mother took the child to visit the mother’s sister, Ms U, in Town Z for a holiday.  During that period the mother decided that there were career opportunities for her in Town Z.

10. In about December 2011 the mother was advised by her landlord that she was required to vacate her rented home in Town Y and she relocated to Town X on the South Coast to live with her parents because she was unable to afford rental accommodation in Town Y.  The father then continued to travel to Town X to collect the child and to return her at the end of his periods of time with her. 

11. The mother was unable to find suitable employment in Town X. 

12. In January 2012 the mother had a discussion with her son K about the possibility of moving to Queensland.  K told the mother that he would stay in Town Y and live with his father.  At the same time the mother started researching local schools at Town Z for the child and discussed with her sister, and with K’s father, her desire to move to Town Z to live with her sister.  The mother also discussed that proposal with the child.  The one person with whom she did not discuss the proposal was the father. 

13. On 11 January 2012 the mother collected the child after a visit with the father and proceeded to drive with the child to Town Z, arriving on 14 January 2012.  The mother concedes that she did not notify the father about the move and it is her evidence that it did not occur to her that the father would want to be involved, as he had shown no interest in the mother’s living arrangements before.  That evidence belies the fact that the father had travelled from Canberra to Town X to see the child each alternate weekend and for the purpose of school holidays.

14. Within a few days of arriving in Town Z the mother secured a casual job at a local hotel where she started work on 3 February 2012.  The mother deposes that it was her intention, when she moved to Town Z in 2012, that there would be no disruption in the time that the child spent with her father.  Her plan was to fly the child from Town Z to Canberra each alternate weekend so that she could continue to spend time with the father.  The mother now realises that that plan was unrealistic both financially and in terms of the travelling which the child would be able to sustain. 

15. The father was due to spend time with the child for the weekend commencing on 2 February 2012.  On 31 January 2012 the mother instructed her solicitors to write to the father advising him that she had relocated to Town Z and giving her proposals as to the time that he would spend with the child if the child and the mother were to remain in Town Z. 

16. On Thursday 2 February 2012 the mother sent a text message to the father which read:

    I am unsure if you have received the solicitors letter so I am sending you a txt (sic) to let you know that the child is no longer at [named school] and you will be unable to pick her up tomorrow.

17. Upon receiving the text the father telephoned and spoke to the mother’s sister, Ms U, who informed him that the mother had relocated to Town Z and that she and the child would be living with Ms U.  Ms U informed the father that the child was enrolled in a local school.

18. On 7 February 2012 the father’s solicitors wrote a letter to the mother indicating that, unless she confirmed that she would be relocating back to the Illawarra region with the child by noon the following day, proceedings would be commenced for an urgent recovery order and in relation to contravention of the existing Orders. 

19. On 9 February 2012 an application was filed on behalf of the father, seeking interim orders that the child be returned to the Town Y area and restraining the mother from relocating with the child.  That application was returnable on 21 February 2012 when the parties entered into Consent Orders which required the child to be returned to the Town Y or Town X by no later than 1 March 2012, to be enrolled in Town X Public School.  The Orders provided that the father’s time with the child would commence from school and the mother was restrained from removing the child from Town X or the Town Y region without the father’s consent. 

20. The mother returned to Town X on 29 February 2012 to live with the child with her parents.  The mother registered with an employment agency in an attempt to secure employment. 

21. On 15 March 2012 the mother filed a Response seeking orders that the child live with her and permitting her to relocate with the child to Town Z.  The father filed an Amended Initiating Application seeking final orders restraining the mother from relocating with the child or, in the alternate, that the child live with him.

22. In April 2012 the mother’s general practitioner prescribed an anti-depressant for her. 

23. In May 2012 the mother secured casual employment at a hotel located about two and a half hours driving time north of Town X.  She worked three to four days per week and at the end of her shift she would stay with a friend nearby.  the child was cared for by the maternal grandparents when the mother was working and unable to return home. 

24. In August 2012 the mother stopped working for three months and cared for the child full time while her parents travelled to Queensland.

25. On 9 October 2012 Orders were made for the preparation of a Family Report.  For the purpose of the report the parents and their respective extended families were interviewed.  The report was released on 27 February 2013. 

26. In April 2013 the mother was referred to a psychologist, Mr R. 

27. Also in April 2013 the mother received a job offer from a firm operating in Town Z as a trainee site assistant.  She was unable to take up that employment. 

28. The matter was listed for final hearing before the Federal Circuit Court on 11 April 2013.  On 12 April 2013 the matter, not having concluded, was adjourned part heard with priority to a date to be fixed.

29. On 9 July 2013 the matter was transferred to the Family Court at Parramatta to be listed for three days commencing 28 October 2013.  Ultimately the matter was unable to proceed to final hearing on those dates because the mother had filed an appeal in relation to an interim determination and that appeal had not yet been heard.

30. In the December school holidays in 2013 the mother travelled to Town Z to visit her sister.  The mother did not tell the father that she would be in Town Z.  When the father was due to return the child on 11 January 2014 he refused to return her because the mother was not available. The mother ultimately returned to Town X and the child was returned to her on 16 January 2014. 

31. A further Family Report was ordered and the parties attended interviews with Ms D, the Family Consultant, in May and June 2014. In addition to the extended maternal family, the Family Consultant interviewed the father, his partner and their children. The Family Consultant’s report was released in August 2014. 

32. In the report the Family Consultant canvassed the various options available for the child and said:

    The third option and the one favoured by the Family Consultant is that the mother be permitted to relocate but not to [Town Z] but rather to somewhere that permits the current parenting arrangements to remain undisturbed.

33. In March 2014 the mother was diagnosed with depression and anxiety and considered medically unfit for work.

34. The matter was listed for the first day of the Less Adversarial Trial on 4 December 2014.  The father did not attend.  Directions were made for the father to file and serve any affidavit material upon which he sought to rely by 23 January 2015 and the matter was listed again on 2 February 2015.  Again the father did not attend and no material had been filed by him.  The father was advised that the matter would be listed for hearing on 9 June 2015 on the basis of the material filed by the mother. 

1. At the commencement of the hearing the father had filed no material since February 2014 and he did not attend.  Thus the matter proceeded on the basis of the evidence of the mother and with the assistance of an Independent Children’s Lawyer (“ICL”).  The mother and the Family Consultant were cross-examined. 

2. At the conclusion of the evidence a minute of orders, to which both the mother and ICL agreed, was tendered.  In broad terms the orders provided for the mother to move with the child to Town Z on the basis that the child would spend a part of each school holiday period with the father and one weekend in the middle of each school term.  The payment of the airfares necessary to give effect to that proposal was to be guaranteed by the maternal grandfather as he had offered to do in his affidavit.

Relocation Application

1. The mother’s application sought orders that she be permitted to relocate with the child to Town Z.  She made no alternate proposal although in the course of the interviews the Family Consultant noted:

   [The mother] stated that, if she is not permitted to relocate with the child to [Town Z], she would nevertheless want to relocate somewhere, possibly to Sydney.  She made it clear that, wherever she lives, she wants the child to continue to live with her.

2. Thus the alternatives available to the Court were either that the mother not be permitted to relocate and remain in Town X, or that she be permitted to relocate to Town Z and the child would relocate with her. 

3. The mother sought an order that the parents have equal shared parental responsibility for the child.

4. It is not disputed that it is in the child’s best interests to have a meaningful relationship with her father.  The Family Consultant in her oral evidence said that the child’s relationship with her father was strongly established and could be maintained provided that the child spent holidays and other occasions with her father in accordance with the proposal that was made on behalf of the mother and ICL. 

5. In relation to the child’s views, the Family Consultant noted in her report:

   [M] (aged 9 years) presents as an engaging 9 year-old girl who loves both of her parents, is aware of her mother’s unhappiness and is upset and worried by it.  She became teary when she talked about her mother being “a bit sad”.  She indicated that she likes it in [Town X] but that her mother does not and that her mother wants to live in Queensland because “that’s where she can get lots and lots of money”.  [The child] said that she wants this too because “the more money she gets, [the] more things we can get”, including that they could live in a “nice house” and [the child] could have her own bedroom. 

6. It is clear from the report of the Family Consultant that the child’s views are strongly influenced by what she perceives to be her mother’s needs. 

7. The mother has been the child’s primary carer for the whole of her life but her father has been a constant presence.  The Family Consultant in the report said:

   [M] is a child who is loved and wanted by both of her parents and seems to have good relationships with both of them.  She also identifies herself, and is identified by her father and stepmother, as having a particularly close relationship with one of her stepsisters, [N]. 

8. The Family Consultant went on to say that, in the context of the assessment, she found nothing of concern in the child’s descriptions of her relationships and other family members on both the paternal and maternal sides of the family.

9. The mother is critical of the father’s failure to participate in decision-making in relation to the child and his failure to spend time with her on special occasions.  The mother is particularly critical of the father’s decision, when the child was a very small child, to move away from the Town Y area and to establish himself in Canberra.  The mother gives evidence of numerous occasions upon which she advised the father of activities that the child might like him to attend and to which he failed to respond.  I note that the father has consistently been the person who travelled from Canberra to Town X to collect the child and again to return her on all of the occasions when she has spent time with him and it was the mother who chose to remove the child from Town X to Town Z without advising the father.

10. The father has failed to fulfil his obligation to financially maintain the child.  As at 9 June 2015 the arrears of child support were $15,200 and the father had not, according to the mother’s evidence, paid child support since 2012.  Thus the entire burden of the child’s financial support has been borne by the mother in circumstances where she has been unable to find work in her local area and is reliant upon Centrelink payments. 

11. There is no evidence before the Court of the father’s financial position except that he lives in Canberra in a home which he and his partner own and that both he and his partner are in employment.  They have three children to support and another baby due in September but it must be obvious that their financial position is greatly superior to that of the mother. 

12. There is no evidence before the Court of any attempt made by the mother, through the Child Support Agency or otherwise, to enforce the collection of the arrears of child support. 

13. The mother has been advised by the Child Support Agency that the father has not filed a taxation return since the financial year ended 30 June 2012. 

14. The proposed move to Town Z would be a significant change for the child from her current circumstances.  The Family Consultant noted that, if the mother is permitted to relocate to Town Z, then:

    The main advantages of this would pertain to the possible improvement in [the mother’s] emotional and financial state, as well as lifestyle.  She also perceives that she would be able to devote more time to the child.  The main disadvantages pertain to: the real and potential impact of such relocation on the child’s relationships with her father and his family (including her baby brother); the financial costs in her maintaining these relationships in a meaningful way and whether the costs can be realistically met on a long-term basis; the amount of travelling that the child would have to do and whether this could be realistically maintained in the long-term, particularly as she moves into adolescence; the child being moved a long way away from other significant family members and friends;…

15. M would no longer be able to see her father and the paternal family every second weekend during school terms.  The school terms in Queensland are approximately ten weeks.  In a ten week period if the child were in New South Wales she would have probably spent four weekends with her father, the fifth weekend probably being absorbed into the school holidays.  If the child spends one mid-semester weekend with her father each semester then she will miss out on three weekends each semester with him.  However the mother’s proposal is that the child spend longer periods in the short school holidays with her father in order to compensate, in part, for the missed weekends.  The Family Consultant expressed the view that more frequent travel for the child would not be sustainable, and would, most likely, lead to the child’s being unwilling to undertake the journeys. 

16. It is the mother’s evidence that K will also move to Town Z if she is permitted to relocate with the child.  K has finished his high school and is hoping to undertake an apprenticeship in the Town Z area.  That would have the advantage for the child that she would be able to spend a great deal more time with K than she has been able to do in the past when he has been living with his father in Town Y. 

17. The practical difficulty and expense of the child spending time with and communicating with her father is significant.  There are no direct flights from Town Z to Canberra.  The flight from Town Z to Brisbane then Brisbane to Canberra takes a little less than four hours.  The flight from Town Z to Sydney and Sydney to Canberra takes about the same time. 

18. The mother accepted that if she were permitted to relocate with the child then the responsibility for paying for the flights would fall upon her.  It was her evidence that she proposed to accompany the child, at least for the next few years, on all of the flights.  The mother filed evidence which indicated that the advance purchase fare on Qantas was $328 each way from Town Z to Canberra, thus for the two of them to travel, each visit would involve $1,312 in airfares.  The mother is proposing eight visits per year at a cost of approximately $10,500. 

19. It was the mother’s evidence that, because she is certain she will be able to obtain work, she would be in a position to pay the airfares.  However, the maternal grandfather is prepared to guarantee the payment of the airfares to ensure that the child is able to travel and visit her father and the orders which the mother proposes are conditional upon the maternal grandfather providing an undertaking to the Court for the payment of the flights.

20. M currently travels by car with her father for three hours on Friday afternoon to Canberra and for three hours back to Town X on Sunday afternoon.  I accept the evidence of the Family Consultant that, at least for holiday periods, the longer period of time between travelling would be beneficial for the child and may make it easier for her to accept the slightly longer period of travel. 

21. The mother has given evidence that the child would be able to speak to her father on Skype using the iPad which he has provided to her.  Nothing in the evidence suggests that the mother would not facilitate the child’s communication with her father.  Whether the father will avail himself with this form of communication, and how frequently, is a matter which remains to be seen since he has not been particularly diligent in communicating with the child either by phone or by Skype thus far.  It may be, however, that the child will be more likely to maintain her communication with T, and particularly with N, using Skype and other electronic means. 

22. The evidence does not suggest that either of the parents lacks capacity to provide for the child’s needs, including her emotional and intellectual needs.

23. Criticisms could be made of the attitude of both of the parents to the child and to the responsibilities of parenting. 

24. The father has failed to support the child financially. He has not taken every opportunity to engage with the child’s activities and with her school, although he would no doubt say that he has done the best he can, given the distance involved. 

25. The mother would no doubt be criticised by the father for failing to at least consider the third option favoured by the Family Consultant, which is that she be permitted to relocate with the child to a place within a similar travelling distance for the child as Canberra is to Town X. However the father’s choice not to be involved with these proceedings and this suggests, with relation to the decision-making in relation to the child’s living arrangements, that he has abdicated that responsibility.

26. In the mother’s consideration and proposals for the move to Town Z, the possibility of obtaining employment is a significant factor for her.  I accept that in the small town of Town X the mother has not been able to obtain employment despite her efforts.

27. Until she moved to Town X she had supported herself and the child in Town Y.  She moved to Town X because she was unable to find affordable accommodation in Town Y. Once she moved to Town X, although she was able to live in her parents’ home, she was unable to find employment other than the employment which required her to travel for two and a half hours and remain for a number of days away from the child. 

28. It is the mother’s case that the only hope for her to be able to find some economic security and to lift her living standard, and that of the child, is to find employment and reasonable accommodation. She believes that both of those targets can be achieved in Town Z. 

29. The mother’s sister is employed in Town Z.  The mother’s sister herself moved from the Y Town region in order to find employment in Town Z.  She has been in her current position for four years.  The mother’s sister has a four-bedroom, two-storey home and has offered to provide accommodation for the mother and the child indefinitely.  The mother’s sister also is willing to provide accommodation for K. 

30. The mother and her sister are close. They are only 15 months apart in age.

31. The mother gave evidence that until such time as she is able to find suitable employment she would be in a position to provide housekeeping and domestic services for her sister.  The mother’s sister and her grown children will be available to help care for the child if the mother has to work outside school hours.

32. The mother’s experience has been in the hospitality industry and on the occasion when she moved with the child to Town Z in 2012 she was able to secure employment almost immediately in hospitality. 

33. The mother was offered employment, as a site assistant, in 2013 at a starting salary of $40,330 per annum but was unable to take up the position. 

34. Whilst it may be that the mother will not be successful in obtaining a position in occupational health and safety, which is her aspiration, there is no reason to believe that she will not be able to obtain, at least in the short term, positions in hospitality. 

35. I accept the evidence of the mother and of Mr R that the mother, for her own psychological well-being, needs to earn an income and support herself and the child to an appropriate standard and that she is unable to do this in Town X. 

36. The proposed move to Town Z holds the potential of a better standard of living and improved psychological health for the mother and, whilst there will be an impact upon the child’s relationship with her paternal family because she will spend less frequent time with them, she will nevertheless maintain a meaningful relationship with her father. 

37. Having regard to all of those matters it is in the child’s best interests that she be permitted to relocate with the mother to Town Z.

I certify that the preceding seventy-six (76) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Rees delivered on 12 June 2015.

Associate:

Date:  12 June 2015