Ruston and Byford

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

RUSTON & BYFORD

[2007] FamCA 406

FAMILY LAW - CHILDREN - With whom a child lives - Relocation
FAMILY LAW - CHILDREN - Substantial and significant time

APPLICANT:

MS RUSTON

RESPONDENT:

MR BYFORD

FILE NUMBER:

BRF

16252

2005

DATE DELIVERED:

8 May 2007

PLACE DELIVERED:

Parramatta

JUDGMENT OF:

COLLIER J

HEARING DATE:

15 - 16 March 2007

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

MR KENNY

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

SOMERVILLE LAUNDRY LOMAX

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

MR BATEY

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

MARK IRELAND LAWYERS

Orders

(1)That all previous parenting orders be and are hereby discharged.
(2)That the husband and the wife shall have equal shared parental responsibility for the children the elder son born in September 1997 and younger son born in October 1999.
(3)That the said children live with the mother.
(4)That each of the parties shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that the said children spend time with the father as follows:
(a)       During school terms in each alternate week from after school Thursday to before school on the then following Monday, extending in the case of a long weekend to before school on Tuesday, commencing on the next weekend when the children were to have spent time with their father pursuant to the previous interim orders.
(b)       Such periods of time are to commence, where the children have spent time with their father in the first half of the school holidays on the first weekend of the next ensuing school term, and where the children have spent time with their father for the second half of the school holidays on the second weekend of the next ensuing school term.
(c)       Each Tuesday from after school to before school Wednesday commencing on the 15^th day of May 2007.
(d)       For the purpose of the children spending time with the father as hereinbefore provided the father or a person nominated by him shall collect the children from their school at the commencement of each period of time with the children and shall return the children to their school at the conclusion of each such period.
(e)       For one half of each school holiday period in each and every year and failing agreement for the first half in years ending in an odd number and the second half in the years ending in an even number.
(f)       In the event that the Easter holiday period does not fall within a school holiday period then for one half of the Easter holiday period in each year, and failing agreement for the first half in years ending in an odd number and the second half in years ending in an even number.
(g)       For the purpose of orders 4 (e) and (f) above the first half shall mean the period commencing at 9am on the day immediately following the last day of school term and concluding at 6pm on the day marking the midpoint of that holiday period. The second half shall mean the period commencing at 9am on the day marking the midpoint of the holiday and concluding at 6pm on the Saturday immediately before the commencement of the next ensuing school term, extending to Sunday in the event that the first day of term is a pupil free day.
(h)       For the purposes of the children spending time with the father pursuant to orders 4 (e) and (f) above the father shall collect the children from the mother’s place of residence at the commencement of each period and shall return the children to the mother at that same place at the conclusion of each such period of time.
(i)        That the parent with whom the children are not living or spending time on Christmas Day pursuant to these orders shall spend time with the children from 6pm on 25 December to 6pm on 27 December. The party who is to spend such time with the children shall collect the children from the residence of the other parent and return the children to the residence of the other parent at the conclusion of that period of time.
(j)        In the event that Father’s Day falls on a day during a period when the children are not to spend time with the father pursuant to these orders then the children shall spend time with the father from 9am to 6pm on that day. In that event, the father shall collect the children from the mother’s place of residence at the commencement of that period and return the children to the mother at her place of residence at the conclusion of such period.
(k)       In the event that Mother’s Day falls on a day during a period when the children are not to spend time with the mother pursuant to these orders, then the father shall return the children to the mother at her place of residence at 6pm on the Saturday immediately prior to Mother’s Day.
(l)        At such other times as the parties shall agree.
(5)That the father have responsibility for decisions as to the children’s daily care during the periods when they are spending time with him. The mother shall have such responsibility at all other times.
(6)That the wife is not to relocate the home of the said children outside the B local government area.
(7)That all applications and cross applications be and are hereby dismissed.
(8)That all issues be removed from the pending cases list.
(9)That all material produced on subpoena be returned not before 56 days from today.

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT PARRAMATTA

FILE NUMBER: BRF 16252 of 2005

MS RUSTON

Applicant

And

MR BYFORD

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

This application concerns the future of the parties’ children, the elder son now nine and a half and younger son seven and a half. By virtue of orders made on 27 January 2006 in the Brisbane registry of the Family Court the mother was to have residence of both boys if she returned to the B area and remained there. The father was to have contact on alternate weekends from Friday pm to Monday am. The mother did return and the boys continued to live with her.
The mother’s position remains that she wishes to relocate with the boys to the Northern Rivers of New South Wales with her current partner Mr C. The wife proposes that in that case the boys would live her and spend time with their father principally during school holidays and for some weekends during school terms. The mother has made it clear as I understand her case that if she is not permitted to take the children she will remain in B. In that case she says the current orders should continue to operate as to the time the father should spend with the children.
The father for his part seeks orders that the children spend equal time with he and the wife. It is inherent in his proposal that that would require the wife to stay in close proximity of the B area. The issue for determination is thus whether the mother should be permitted to relocate the children’s residence from B to the Northern Rivers or whether the children should remain in the B area. If the children remain in B the amount of time they spend with each parent is the subject of dispute.
As in most cases of this type this is a difficult and finely balanced matter. I have no doubt that the party who does not obtain the orders that he/she seeks will be devastated by the outcome of these proceedings.

Brief Background

There is little factual dispute concerning the history of the parties’ marriage and relationship and the background to this most unfortunate dispute. I am able to set out the historical background as follows:
·In February 1961 husband born.
·In November 1972 wife born.
·December 1991 parties commence relationship.
·1993 commence cohabitation.
·In November 1995 parties marry. At that stage the parties are living in O.
·In September 1997 elder son born.
·In October 1999 younger son born.
·2000 husband commences employment with State Government at B. The parties purchase vacant land at G.
·2002 parties move into a house constructed on the G property.
·Early 2004 Mr C’s wife dies.
·June/July 2005 the wife and children visit Mr C at his home in the Northern Rivers.
·September/October holidays 2005 wife and children again visit Mr C.
·November 2005 the wife moves with the children to join Mr C.
·25 November 2005 the wife files an application in the Brisbane registry.
·27 January 2006 orders are made by consent requiring the children to return with the children to live in the B area.

The Parties’ Applications

The wife commenced these proceedings in the Brisbane registry by her application filed on 15 November 2005. At the time of filing that application she had already moved from the B area to the Northern Rivers of New South Wales. There were subsequent amended applications filed and at the commencement of the hearing the mother filed in court a further amended application setting out the orders that she sought. The orders that she sought were in the following terms:
(1)That the wife be given leave to relocate with the children of the marriage [the elder son] born [September 1997] and [younger son] born [October 1999] from B to the Northern Rivers Region of NSW.
(2)That the children of the marriage [the elder son] born [September 1997] and [younger son] born [October 1999] live with the Wife and she be responsible for their day to day care, welfare and development.
(3)That the husband spend time with and communicate with the said children at all times as the Husband and the Wife might reasonably agree, but to include the times as set out in orders 4 and 5 below.
(4)The Husband spend time with the said children:
(a)For the whole of the Easter School Holiday period each year; for one half of the June/July school holidays each year; for the whole of the September holiday period each year.
(b)For one half of the Christmas school holiday period, being the first half in even numbered years and the second half in odd numbered years.
(c)For the purposes of facilitating holiday contact, the parties equally be responsible for travel, with the wife being responsible for transporting the children to [B] at the commencement of school holiday contact periods, and that should the Husband wish to return the children by aeroplane the Wife shall collect the children from [A] or [L] airport.
(d)During school terms, at least one weekend, with the children flying to and from Sydney. That the costs of these fares be born equally by the parties.
(e)On the father giving one weeks notice, weekend periods in the Northern Rivers/SE QLD region.
(f)At any other reasonable time.
(5)That the Husband be at liberty to communicate with the children by telephone or other electronic means or mail without limitation, with the wife to ensure that she maintains a functional computer and internet account with e-mail access for the children.
(6)That each party authorise any school attended by the children, and any health provider for the children, to provide information to the other in respect of the children, and each parent otherwise communicate with the other and co-operate with the other to give effect to section 61C of the Family Law Act.
The husband filed a response in the Brisbane registry on 1 December 2006. He subsequently also filed further amended responses. At the commencement of the hearing a further amended response was filed in court seeking orders in the following terms:
(1)That all previous orders concerning the children of the marriage namely [the elder son] born [in] September 1997 and [younger son] born [in] October 1999 be discharged.
(2)That the father and the mother shall have equal shared parental responsibility for the children.
(3)That the mother be restrained from relocating the home of the children to outside the [B] Local Government area.
(4)That during school terms, the children live with the mother for one week from the conclusion of school on Friday afternoon until the commencement of school on the following Friday.
(5)That during school holidays, the children live with the mother as follows:
(a)For one half of school term holidays, at times agreed between the parties, but failing agreement being the first half of school holidays commencing in 2007 and each alternate year thereafter, and the second half of school holidays commencing in 2008 and each alternate year thereafter.
(b)For half of the Christmas school holidays, such times to be agreed between the parties, but ensuring that the children are in the father’s care for the last two weeks in January for the annual family holiday.
(c)Christmas Day 2008 and each alternate year thereafter.
(6)That the children live with the father at all other times.
In the event that the wife relocates from the [B] area:
(7)That the children live with the father.
(8)That the children spend time with the mother as follows:
(a) On the first weekend of each month.
(b)On any occasion when the mother is in the [B] area, for up to ten consecutive days in any four week period, as agreed between the parties and provided that the mother give reasonable notice to the father of her intention to travel to [B] and spend time with the children.
(c)For half of the term school holidays, at times as agreed between the parties, but failing agreement being the first half of school holidays commencing in 2007 and each alternate year thereafter, and the second half of school holidays commencing in 2008 and each alternate year thereafter.
(d)For half of Christmas school holidays, ensuring that the children are in their father’s care for the last two weeks in January for the annual family holiday.
(e)Additional time as agreed between the parties.
(9)That for the purposes of spending time with the children pursuant to Order 8 hereof, the mother will collect the children from the [B] region.

Affidavit Material of the Parties

The wife relied upon her affidavit filed 7 February 2007 and her further affidavit sworn 13 March 2007 which was filed in court. She relied on the affidavit of Mr C sworn 24 January 2007.
The husband relied upon his affidavit of 9 February 2007.
I heard oral evidence from the mother, Mr C and the father. I should say here that this matter was conducted on circuit. The parties were fortunate in their representation. The matter was conducted in an efficient and timely manner by competent counsel on each side.

Reports

There was in evidence before me a report of Ms P of 16 February 2007. Ms P gave evidence by telephone in this matter. There was further tendered as an exhibit a report of Mr J of 23 January 2006.

The Evidence before Me

The wife clearly has a hearing problem. At times she needed sentences and occasionally whole questions repeated. Notwithstanding this she gave her evidence in a calm and straightforward fashion. She appeared to endeavour to try and answer that which was asked of her to the best of her ability.
The wife’s evidence demonstrated to me that she believes it is necessary for her to move with the children to live with Mr C in the C area. She gave evidence of having made enquiries of schools in the area to which the children could be sent. Clearly schooling is a matter of some importance in this case, particularly so far as the elder son is concerned, and I will return to that later in these reasons for judgment.
At the conclusion of the wife’s evidence I was satisfied that she was endeavouring to tell the truth in relation to the matter and in respect of what should occur in the future.
Mr C I found a less convincing witness than the wife. His evidence concerning his ability to operate his business only in the Northern Rivers caused me some concern as I was not able to be convinced that that operation could not be moved to the B area. I was also concerned about his evidence in relation to tendering for the O mail run and I will return to this later in these reasons for judgment.
The husband gave his evidence in a straightforward forthright manner. He did become emotional on occasion. It was clear from his evidence that the involvement he had with the children prior to the parties’ separation was considerably less than is presently the case.
Again I found the husband to be a witness of truth in relation to the evidence that he gave.
This is a finely balanced case. I am able to establish from the evidence that I have heard that the mother was clearly the children’s primary carer up to separation. The father was in employment which was important to him. Indeed the family had moved to B in 2000 when he took up his then new position with State Government. I am satisfied the husband worked hard and spent long hours away from the home as required by his employment. Indeed the family operated on what might be described as conventional lines with the mother caring for the home and the children and the father providing from his income a significant standard of living.
The mother in her evidence and through cross examination of the husband demonstrated that before separation the husband did not attend many of the children’s school and sporting functions and activities.
However it is clear that since separation the husband has increased his active participation in the children’s lives to a marked degree. He now attends far more of their activities than was previously the case. Indeed as I have already indicated he now seeks that the children share their time equally between his household and the household of the mother.
The mother left the B area clearly having determined that the marriage was over. She moved immediately to live with Mr C in his home in the Northern Rivers district. That move to my mind indicated a lack of appreciation of what such a move would or could mean to the boys. In my view she made no attempt to assess the impact that such a move would have on the boys. It is clear that the elder son particularly did not like the school that the mother enrolled him in on her arrival in the Northern Rivers.
The only explanation that one can glean from the evidence is that the mother was determined to pursue her relationship with Mr C and I am satisfied that at the time she moved that thought was foremost or uppermost in her mind.
The mother’s case is that there is nothing left for her in the B area. She indicates that her relationship with her parents is problematic. She contrasts this with the husband’s relationship with her parents, particularly her father, and her sister. It seems on the evidence that I have heard that the mother is suggesting that the husband has deliberately placed himself close to her parents to in someway exclude her from the family circle. I do not accept that this is so insofar as imputing any ulterior motive to the husband. I am satisfied he considers the wife’s father a great mate and this feeling of affection appears to be reciprocated.
The wife, as I have said, asserts her present relationship with her parents to be problematic. She seems to indicate that she has little support from her parents. However on her evidence it appears that on each occasion she has sought assistance from her parents in caring for the boys or picking them up from school, that assistance has been forthcoming. The husband has no apparent close association with the B area other than his friendship with the wife’s family. He came to the area because of work. Clearly the parties built a home which gave them the ability to engage in rural or semi-rural pursuits and clearly the boys both enjoy this aspect of their life in B.
The husband makes it clear that he proposes to remain in B. He says any discussion of a move or potential move to Brisbane as set out in the family report does not reflect his intentions.

The mother, again as I have said, has her family in B. Her wish to move to the Northern Rivers is inexorably tied into her relationship with Mr C which seems to be ongoing and stable.
As I have indicated Mr C’s evidence has caused me some concern. I am not convinced as to what he tells me about his inability to relocate his business to the B area. I am also left somewhat puzzled as to his actual motives in tendering for the O mail run. I find it hard to accept that it was his intention at all times, if awarded that run, to operate it from the Northern Rivers. Rather I perceive in this action an attempt to secure employment and therefore income if the wife is not permitted to relocate.
This then is a brief overview of the factual situation and the evidence of the parties. I turn then to the law to be applied.

The Law to be Applied

There have been significant changes made to the Family Law Act by virtue of amendments which came into effect on 1 July 2006. Notwithstanding those changes this matter is, I am satisfied, a relocation case such as was examined by their Honours of the Full Court in A & A (Relocation Approach) (2002) FLC93-035. Their Honours in that case set out that in determining a parenting case that involved relocating the residence of a child a number of principles applied. These may be summarised as follows:
a)The best interests of the children remain the paramount but not the sole consideration.
b)The Court cannot require the applicant to demonstrate compelling reasons (for relocation).
c)It is necessary to evaluate each of the proposals advanced by the parties.
d)The Court cannot proceed to determine the issues in a way which separates the issue of relocation from that of residence the best interests of the children.
e)The evaluation of the competing proposals must weight the evidence and submissions of each proposal would hold advantages and disadvantages for the children’s best interests.
f)It is necessary to follow the legislative directions, which at that time were to be found in s 60B and s 68F of the Family Law Act.
Their Honours went on to say that the reasons would display three stages of analysis.
a)The Court would identify the relevant proposals and for each relevant factor set out the relevant evidence and submissions.
b)One of the matters, but only one, is the reasons as they bear upon the child’s best interests.
c)The ultimate test is the best interests of the child and to the extent that the freedom of a parent to move impinges upon those interests and it must give way.
The process of evaluation must have regard to the following issues:
a)None of the parties bears an onus.
b)The importance of a party’s right to freedom of movement.
c)Care must be taken to ensure that orders are framed congruent with a party’s right under s 92 of the Constitution where applicable.
d)The Court must consider the arrangement that each parent proposes to make contact with the other.

Changes to the Act

As I have said significant changes have been made to the statute. S 60B deals with the object of Part VII, and the principles underlying that part. It remains in the Act in an amended form, but not vastly different form from the form it took prior to 1 July. It sets out the objects of Part VII of the Act and the principles underlying those objects. In summary fashion those objects are:
a)Ensuring the children have the benefit of both parents having a meaningful involvement in their lives to the maximum extent consistent with the best interests of the child;
b)Protecting children from physical of psychological harm, from being subjected to or exposed to abuse, neglect or family violence;
c)Ensuring the children receive adequate and proper parenting to help them achieve their full potential; and
d)Ensuring parents fulfil their duties and meet their responsibilities concerning the care, welfare and development of their children.
S 60B (2) deals with the principles underlying those objects. They are, in summary form as follows, that except where it is or would be contrary to the children’s best wishes:-
a)Children have a right to know and be cared for by both parents regardless of whether their parents are married, separated, have never married or have never lived together;
b)Children have a right to spend time on a regular basis with and communicate on a regular basis with both parents and other people significant to their care, welfare and development (such as grandparents and other relatives);
c)Parents jointly share duties and responsibilities concerning the care welfare and development of their children;
d)Parents should agree about future parenting; and
e)Children have a right to enjoy their culture including the right to enjoy that culture with other people that share that culture.
To my mind, neither of those sections need particular explanation. They make it clear that, except where it is not in the children’s best interests, the children are to have the benefit of both parents in their lives and that children have a right to spend time on a regular basis with parents and other people significant to them. Children are to be protected and are to receive proper parenting.
Subsection (d) to my mind has significance in this case. Both parties wish to be intimately involved with the lives of their children and the care of their children. However each parent has a very different view as to how this is best achieved and the role or part that the other parent should play in the children’s lives.
The mother wishes to move from her present location with the children to the Northern Rivers of New South Wales. If this were to occur as already identified the children would spend only occasional weekend time and holiday time with their father. The mother says that that is sufficient for the father to maintain and indeed possibly even increase his involvement with the children and his ongoing relationship with them. If she cannot achieve this (that is, her proposed move) she says that she would remain in the B area but there should be no effective or significant change to the present regime for the father to spend time with the children.
The father says that it is best for the children to not only remain in the B area so that he can see them at least as often as he does now but indeed he says that his time with the children should be increased to the extent that the children would spend equal time with each parent. As I understand him, he is asserting that the level of communication between he and the mother is sufficient to enable this to be achieved.
The next relevant section is s 60C A. It provides that in deciding whether to make a particular parenting order in relation to a child the Court must regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration. This section is in the same terms as the repealed s 65 E.
Whilst s 68F of the Act has been repealed as to matters to be considered in determining what is in a child’s best interests, new sections have been inserted. S 60CC 2 sets out the primary considerations and 66CC 3 deals with additional considerations. Those additional considerations, with some additions, are in terms not dissimilar to the old s 68F.
In my view, and having regard to A & A (supra) it is necessary for me to consider each of the factors as they impinge upon the applications of the parties, and the other available orders that are identified, that may be necessary to do justice to the matter.
There can be no doubt that primary considerations have to be given full weight and effect. To my view however, they do not subsume the additional considerations. Rather the additional considerations are a useful tool in identifying the matters to be looked at to arrive at a decision in respect of the primary considerations.
Subsection 1 of s 60CC provides that the Court must consider the matters set out in subsections 2 and 3. Subsection 2 is in the following terms:
(2) The primary considerations are:
(a) the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of the child’s parents; and
(b) the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to , abuse, neglect or family violence.
Thereafter in subsection (3) the additional considerations are set out as follows:
Additional considerations are:
a.any views expressed by the child and any factors (such as the child’s maturity or level of understanding) that the court thinks are relevant to the weight it should give to the child’s views;
b.the nature of the relationship of the child with:
i. each of the child’s parents; and
ii.other persons (including any grandparent or other relative of the child);
c.the willingness and ability of the ach of the child’s parents to facilitate, and encourage, a close and continuing relationship between the child and the other parent;
d.the likely effect of any changes in the child’s circumstances, including the likely effect on the child of any separation from:
i. either of his or her parents; or
ii. any other child, or other person (including any grandparent or other relative of the child), with whom he or she has been living;
e.the practical difficulty and expense of a child spending time with and communicating with a parent and whether that difficulty or expense will substantially affect the child’s right to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis;
f.the capacity of:
i. each of the child’s parents; and
ii.any other person (including any grandparent or other relative of the child;
to provide for the needs of the child, including emotional and intellectual needs;
g. the maturity, sex, lifestyle and background (including lifestyle, culture and traditions) of the said child and of either of the child’s parents, and any other characteristics of the child that the court thinks are relevant;
h.if the child is an Aboriginal child or Torres Strait Islander child:
i.the child’s right to enjoy his or her Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander culture (including the right to enjoy that culture with other people who share that culture); and
ii.the likely impact any proposed parenting order under this Part will have on that right;
i.the attitude to the child, and to the responsibilities of parenthood, demonstrated by each of the child’s parents;
j.any family violence involving the child or a member of the child’s family;
k.any family violence order that applies to the child or a member of the child’s family, if:
i.the order is a final order; or
ii. the making of the order was contested by a person;
l.whether is would be preferable to make the order that would be least likely to lead to the institution of further proceedings in relation to the child;
m.any other fact or circumstance that the court thinks is relevant.
Section 60CC(2)a makes it abundantly clear that the Court must consider the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both parents. In the past I am satisfied the mother has been the primary caregiver to these boys. I am satisfied that prior to separation this was to a significant and marked degree. The father worked long hours outside the home to provide a comfortable standard of living for his family. The husband cannot be criticised for this. However it is apparent that with the hours he spent outside the home, with all the goodwill and wishes to be involved, it follows that he must have left the day to day care largely to the wife and it also fell to her to attend special occasions for the boys.
Since separation I am satisfied the father has become more and more involved in the everyday lives of the children. His time with the children has been substantial.
It is clear that these children will receive a real benefit from having both their parents in their lives to the maximum extent that that is possible. If it can be achieved the ability for the children to see each parent on a frequent basis should involve the minimum difficulty and discomfort for the children.
As I have sought to explain the husband’s relationship with the children has expanded significantly since the parties’ separation. Whilst clearly the mother was the significant and effectively unchallenged caretaker of the children during the time the parties were together this is no longer necessarily the case. The reality of the situation must be recognised. The parties’ situations and relationships with their children have changed by the very fact of their separation. The manner in which the parties arranged their lives and the manner in which they dealt with their children’s day to day and long term needs have been irrevocably changed as a result of that separation.
To my mind the need to protect the children from abuse, neglect or family violence is a minor consideration in this case. Much has been raised against Mr C. This arose I am satisfied out of an episode where one of his daughter’s fingers got caught in a car door and Mr C reacted by smacking the elder son. Whist this situation does Mr C no credit I am not satisfied that it amounts to or can be seen as abuse such as to require some steps to protect the children or particularly the elder son in the mother’s household.
I turn then to the additional consideration. The first of those considerations is in the following terms:
a. any views expressed by the child and any factors (such as the child’s maturity or level of understanding) that the court thinks are relevant to the weight it should give to the child’s views.
The children in this case have expressed wishes to see and see often each of their parents. The elder son was noted as a rather anxious talkative though cooperative little boy. His first wish was that his family was back together again and his father was back to being happy.
The elder son indicated that he enjoyed spending time with his father on their property which he knew very well. He liked to see neighbours and animals on the property. It is significant to my mind that the elder son observed that his father spends much more time with he and his brother than was previously the case. He informed the reporter that his father spent a lot of time playing with them but he also spent time on the internet and home computer in relation to his work. The elder son obviously disliked being left by himself and had bad memories of movies he had watched. I do not quite understand the significance of this last comment.
He was positive about spending time with his mother. In her home he could remember playing chess but not much else and he enjoyed bike riding. He considered that Mr C daughters K and J could be really annoying and they told lies about him which caused him getting into trouble. He disliked having to do dishes and again he mentioned disliking having to do things on his own.
He was concerned about Mr C becoming angry and shouting and perceived that Mr C was trying to frighten them to stop them repeating their actions. The elder son disliked it when Mr C made fun of his father. The elder son spoke of what happened when he jammed J’s fingers in the car door accidentally.
He spoke of C but added “I kind of like living there because we had heaps of land” and he had a good friend who knew a lot about motorbikes. He did not enjoy the new school he started at C. He said he kind of missed his friends at S School but not really.
At paragraph 43 of the family report the elder son indicated that the happiest people in his family were his mother and Mr C when they were together. He felt his father was the saddest person in the family. Further he commented that everyone had been kind to his father but not to his mother. To my mind this displays a degree of perception that indicates this child is both observant and in some way sympathetic to the plight of others. He indicated that if told he had to live with his mother in C he would say that he would do this only if Mr C settles down his temper and we did not have to do stuff (paragraph 34). When asked about living with his father the elder son said he would respond that it was okay with him because he was used to the property, the town, etc. In my view this appears to show a preference for remaining close to the B area if he lived with his father.
It seems to me that the child was never asked to comment about a situation where he spent week and week about or something of that nature with each parent.
The younger son was observed as confident, cheerful and cooperative. He said that he liked to spend time playing with his father on the trampoline and under the sprinkler. He enjoyed electronic games. He liked to be involved with the goats with their father. However he disliked it when his father made him clean up the mess that he had made and he disliked being asked to do chores. He explained that in the past this had been done by his mother and that was something he preferred to occur.
When spending time with his mother he said he liked to ride his bike, he enjoyed playing with Mr C’s daughters and his brother. However he did not like it when Mr C became angry with the elder son and when the elder son in turn gets angry with Mr C. He said the girls tell on us.
He considered that J was the happiest member of the family and K the saddest. He said he did not like C and had not made friends there. If the judge told him he had to live with his mother he would tell the judge he wanted to stay in B and spend time with both his mother and father. If the judge told him he had to live in B with his father he would not agree.
Clearly and however it has occurred, the younger son has given some thought to what should happen and is clearly indicating that he wishes to spend week about with his parents. However his age is such that to my mind whilst an indicator is by no means determinative of the issue that I am to decide. It is however a matter that I take into account in reaching a determination.
The next matter I am required to consider is subsection (b).
b.the nature of the relationship of the child with:
i. each of the child’s parents; and
ii.other persons (including any grandparent or other relative of the child);
Again I am significantly assisted by the report of Ms P in respect of this matter. Both boys were clearly happy to see their father (paragraph 42). They were relaxed and friendly with him. The children farewelled him without difficulty. With the mother there appeared to be some competition by the younger son for his mother’s attention. When Mr C entered they were happy to involve him in a game they were playing. They welcome K and J into the room when they entered. I accept that the boys have a positive relationship with both parents and enjoy spending time with both.
I am satisfied that both children have a loving and fulfilling relationship with each of their parents. I am satisfied that the relationship with their father has changed somewhat as he has become more and more involved in their day to day lives following the parties’ separation.
I am satisfied that both boys appear to have a satisfactory relationship with Mr C although it is also clear that the boys perceive him as being angry at times, and wish him to be less angry.
The boys’ relationship with Mr C’s daughters again appears to be friendly and I have no doubt the more time the children spend together the closer that relationship will become. There is clearly already what might be described as sibling rivalry and the boys are conscious of the girls telling tales about them to the adults in the household.
I am also satisfied that the children have a close relationship with both maternal and paternal grandparents. The maternal grandparents are in the immediate area. The mother as I have said seems to indicate that her relationship with her parents is poor. Clearly the father’s relationship with his in-laws is an excellent one. He and his father-in-law particularly are close. I am satisfied that the father has been able because of the circumstances that prevail to ensure that the children see a good deal of their maternal grandparents which they and he both enjoy.

I am satisfied that the father also involves his parents who live in Sydney as much as is possible in the boys’ lives.
The next matter I must consider is subsection (c) in the following terms:
c.the willingness and ability of the ach of the child’s parents to facilitate, and encourage, a close and continuing relationship between the child and the other parent;
The mother clearly perceives that the children do not need to see as much of their father as he asserts would be appropriate. Her view is that holidays and the occasional weekend are sufficient, combined with other methods of electronic communication, to enable the relationship of father and sons to continue and hopefully expand. Clearly the mother’s proposals must restrict the father’s time with the children. They make any involvement by the father with the children’s school activities effectively impossible. Any form of mid-week contact be it overnight or otherwise is equally impossible.
To my mind the mother’s proposals do not indicate that she is committed to encouraging a close and continuing relationship between father and children. Notwithstanding the advances in modern technology if her proposal were adhered to there would be significant periods of time where the boys would have no face to face contact with their father. Certainly he could not spend time with them even approaching the level of time that he currently enjoys with his sons.
The father’s proposed orders would ensure that each of the parties would have an opportunity to spend time with the children during the week and at weekends. Such an arrangement to my mind would have real benefit to the boys. It would enable them to see each parent on a frequent and regular basis and have that parent actively involved in their everyday activities rather than, as is the case of the mother’ proposal, the father would spend only holiday or weekend time with the boys.
The next subsection deals with the likely effect of change and is in the following terms:
d.the likely effect of any changes in the child’s circumstances, including the likely effect on the child of any separation from:
i. either of his or her parents; or
ii. any other child, or other person (including any grandparent or other relative of the child), with whom he or she has been living;
If the mother’s application is successful and she is permitted to relocate the residence of the children to C then it must follow that there will be lengthy periods of time when the father does not see the children. The father has conceded that it may be possible for him to combine work trips to T with seeing the boys. It is clear also that there are other means than face to face contact for the boys and their father to share a relationship. However the effect of a move would be that the frequent periods of time spent with the children would be denied the father.
There is also the fact that the elder son has clearly not liked the school to which he was sent previously in C. The mother has I am satisfied made some enquiries as to other schools but her evidence in this regard left me somewhat concerned. I am satisfied that her enquiries were made only at the last minute and that her real attitude is that if the boys are allowed to move with her then she will of course make proper arrangements for their schooling. In other words I believe she feels that she should be left effectively to her own devices to make these arrangements.
If the father’s application were acceded to then there would be a change in the amount of time the boys would spend with each of parent i.e. more with the father and less with the mother, so that they spent equal time with each. When comparing the effect of the change and the significance of it, it is to my mind clear that the father’s proposal would involve less change for the boys.
Another matter of change would be that the boys would see less of their maternal grandparents than would be the case if they remained in B and particularly if they spent equal time with the father who clearly will facilitate that contact. It seems to me that they would see less of their paternal grandparents although not to any such marked degree.
Finally of course if they were to move with their mother it would be axiomatic that they would see more of and spend more time with Mr C and his girls.
Subsection (e):
e.the practical difficulty and expense of a child spending time with and communicating with a parent and whether that difficulty or expense will substantially affect the child’s right to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis;
If the mother’s application is acceded to the father I am satisfied will have imposed upon him the substantial burdens of time and expense in travelling to see the boys. This will be a matter of significance for him as in all probability he will have to travel to collect the boys and bring them to his home a round journey of many hours in a motor vehicle. If he is required to stay overnight and possibly more than overnight this will involve him in additional expenses.
The father is in a financial position of some significant debt. However he earns a reasonably high annual salary. I am satisfied that the father would be able to finance the travelling necessary whether by car of by plane to see the boys on every opportunity. I am satisfied that he can combine work commitments which require him to go to T with visits to see the boys.
I deal then with subsection (f) which I set out and which I will couple with subsection (i):
f.the capacity of:
i. each of the child’s parents; and
ii.any other person (including any grandparent or other relative of the child;
to provide for the needs of the child, including emotional and intellectual needs;
i.the attitude to the child, and to the responsibilities of parenthood, demonstrated by each of the child’s parents;
Clearly each of the parties has the capacity to care for the boys on a day to day basis, to house them, feed them, to ensure they attend school. In the father’s case he would propose the boys live with him in the property they know and lived in prior to the parties separating. I am satisfied that the mother can do the same, that is accommodate the children and provide for those needs whether she lives with them in B or in the Northern Rivers. Notwithstanding what I have previously said I am satisfied that the mother would do her best to ensure that the children attend a school at which they are at least not unhappy.
I am satisfied that each of the parties can provide for the emotional needs of the children. I am satisfied that the boys perceive their mother as happier and their father as the sadder of their parents. However I am not of the view that the boys are indicating that they feel they must side with their father out of any sense of loyalty or sympathy. Rather their expressions of pleasure in relation to the B property seemed to me to be based on their own experience and enjoyment of that household.
So far as the attitude towards the responsibilities of parenthood is concerned there is clearly the episode where the mother took the children to C with her and Mr C and remained there until compelled to return by an order of the Brisbane Registry of this court. To my mind the mother in that instance put her own needs before that of the children. Clearly her marriage had become unbearable and she was determined I am satisfied to move with Mr C without consideration of the effect this would have on the father and the children. In fact I echo the comments of Ms P that if the mother had chosen to remain in the B area it is highly probably that this matter would not have descended into litigation. In that regard I am satisfied that at least in that particular instance the mother’s recognition of the boy’s needs was made subsidiary to her own needs.
I am not particularly concerned with subsection (g). Both parents, as I understand the evidence, proposed that the children would each be raised in their present religious faith. In my view, there is likely to be little difference in either household.
There is however the question of the education of the children, particularly the elder son. He was a student at S School B before his mother removed him when she moved to C. She then enrolled him at C Public School, a school that he clearly did not like. When the wife returned to B pursuant to the orders of the Brisbane registry the elder son was re-enrolled at S School. Apparently he was glad to be back and his friends at that school were glad to see him.
The elder son is a boy with special needs. It seems that those needs have to some extent been met to a significant level by the staff at S School. He is a member of a small class receiving almost individual attention.
The mother’s case is that it would assist in the elder son’s socialisation were he to be a member of a larger school group. This issue of schooling has to my mind some significance, especially acknowledging the specific requirements of the elder son. Whilst I am satisfied that the schools the mother has made enquiries with are all perfectly adequate, they are not schools with which the elder son is familiar. Notwithstanding the evidence by the mother, and acknowledging her qualifications in special education, it seems to me certainly in schooling is a significant factor in reaching a determination in this case.
Subsection (h) is not relevant.
So far as family violence is concerned the only matter of relevance is the incident involving Mr C and the elder son. To my mind the chastisement by Mr C may well have been excessive. The mother herself was concerned enough to contact the father as a result of it. However the episode seems to have followed upon the elder son either accidentally or otherwise injuring J’s hand in a car door. I am satisfied that the episode reflected an excess of discipline which Mr C now seems to recognise. Accordingly it does not constitute, so far as I am satisfied, violence that needs have any further consideration in this matter.
I am of the view that it is impossible to ascertain which of any of the orders that are open to me would be least likely to lead to the institution of further proceedings.
Subparagraph 4 of s 60CC then provides that I must take into account the extent to which each of the parties has fulfilled or failed to fulfil responsibilities as a parent:
(4) Without limiting paragraphs (3) (c) and (i), the court must consider the extent o which each of the child’s parents has fulfilled, or failed to fulfil, his or her responsibilities as a parent and, in particular, the extent to which each of the child’s parents:
(a) has taken, or failed to take, the opportunity:
(i) to participate in making decisions about major long-term issues in relation to the child; and
(ii) to spend time with the child; and
(iii) to communicate with the child; and
I have already found that the father’s relationship with the children has changed since the parties’ separation. Since separation however the father has sought to be actively engaged in the children’s lives and in decisions effecting the children to a far greater extent than was the case before.
The husband I am satisfied is genuine in these endeavours to become a more integral and active part of the boys’ lives, rather than bringing his application as some means of making it difficult for the mother to achieve what she wants for her future life.
Accordingly I am satisfied that the father has taken, since separation, reasonable steps to ensure that he is included both in the activities and in the decisions that will effect the future of the boys. On the evidence before me he has not sought to interfere with the wife’s interaction and time with the boys. The father acknowledges the importance of an ongoing relationship between the boys and their mother and if in no other way does this by acknowledging by his own application that the children should spend half of their time with their mother.
The mother for her part seeks that the children spend limited time with their father in the event that her application to relocate is successful, or in the event that it is not that the children spend the same time that they presently spend with their father pursuant to interim orders.
To my mind the mother’s abrupt and un-notified move when separation occurred indicates to me that at that time she was unaware of, or perhaps unwilling to recognise, the husband’s position in the boys’ lives. It is clear that at the time of separation at the period leading up to that event the father had been involved to a lesser rather than greater degree in the boys’ lives. However I am satisfied that there was nonetheless a significant relationship between the boys and their father, that relationship which the mother totally ignored with her move.
I turn then to s 61DA. It, to my mind, brings a fresh matter for consideration to the Act. S 61DA (i) is in the following terms:
(i) When making a parenting order in relation to a child, the court must apply a presumption that it is in the best interests of the child for the child’s parents to have equal shared parental responsibility for the child.
It is of significance to read the note to that subsection, which is in the following terms:
Note: The presumption provided for in this subsection is a presumption that relates solely to the allocation of parental responsibility for a child as defined in section 61B. It does not provide for a presumption about the amount of time the child spends with each of the parents (this issue is dealt with in section 65DAA).
Clearly then what is being referred to in this section, should the presumption remain intact, is that the parties should enjoy equal shared parental responsibility, not equal shared time.
Subsection (2) makes it clear the presumption does not apply if a parent or person who lives with the parent of the child has engaged in abuse of the child or another child or family violence. Subsection (4) then says the presumption may be rebutted by evidence that satisfies the Court it would not be in the best interests of the child for the parents to have equal shared responsibility.
I have already dealt in these reasons for judgment with the episodes between Mr C and the elder son. I have already made findings in this regard. I am satisfied that that episode does not operate so as to rebut the presumption raised in subsection (1). Certainly so far as I am aware neither party has sought to put to me that the presumption was effectively rebutted by this episode. Accordingly then the presumption is to apply unless rebutted by evidence as envisaged by subparagraph (4).
In this case both parties, wherever they live, wish to remain actively involved in the parenting of their sons in and at all levels. The section in my view must be given full weight. It clearly operates to make a significant change in the law. It is clearly the intention of Parliament that this consideration should apply unless otherwise found, for good reason, not to be applicable. In this case I am satisfied that there is nothing in the evidence which I have heard capable of rebutting the presumption. To my mind it is clearly in the best interests of these children that both of their parents would be actively and extensively involved in their upbringing. To my mind the best way in which this can be achieved is for the parties to have equal shared parental responsibility.
Having reached that conclusion, it is then necessary for me to deal with s 65DAA (1) and (2).
Subsection (1) of s 65DAA provides that if a parenting order provides or is to provide that a child’s parents are to have equal shared parental responsibility, the court must:
(1) If a parenting order provides (or is to provide) that a child’s parents are to have equal shared parental responsibility for the child, the court must:
(a) consider whether the child spending equal time with each of the parents would be in the best interests of the child; and
(b) consider whether the child spending equal time with each of the parents is reasonably practicable; and
(c) if it is, consider making an order to provide (or including a provision in the order) for the child to spend equal time with each of the parents.
In the event that I am not satisfied that the order made should provide for the children to spend equal time with each of the parents, I must then consider whether the children spending substantial and significant time with each of the parents is in the best interests of the children and is reasonably practical. The provisions of subsection (2) are as follows:
(2) If:
(a) a parenting order provides (or is to provide) that a child’s parents are to have equal shared parental responsibility for the children; and
(b) the court does not make an order (or include a provision in the order) for the child to spend equal time with each of the parents; and
the court must:
(c) consider whether the child spending substantial and significant time with each of the parents would be in the best interests of the child; and
(d) consider whether the child spending substantial and significant time with each of the parents is reasonably practicable; and
(e) if it is, consider making an order to provide (or including a provision in the order) for the child to spend substantial and significant time with each of the parents.
Note 1:The effect of section 60CA is that in deciding whether to go on to make a parenting order for the child to spend substantial time with each of the parents, the court will regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration.
The question for ultimate determination then to my mind is this:- Should the mother be allowed to live with the boys, Mr C and his daughters in the C region, with the boys spending periods of holiday time and occasional weekends with their father? Should the boys live where they have lived for the better part of their lives in the B area where it will be possible for them to spend either equal time with their father (based on his application) or time with him of a lesser nature if the mother’s alternative position is indeed that which is close to the orders that I make? Should the boys, as a further alternative, remain living with their mother in B and spend increased time with their father?

Discussion

I have expressed my concerns that the mother’s move to C at separation was a situation in which she was not dealing with the children’s needs so much as her own wishes and needs as she perceived them to be. I am satisfied that she continues to see a move away as something that would resolve all of her problems. I am satisfied that she sees herself, if not permitted to move, as being kept in an area where she has no support of a family nature and indeed is, to some extent, thought the less of or marginalised by her family as a result of her decision to separate from the husband.
Mr C tells me as I understand his evidence that he can really only live and operate his business in the Northern Rivers area. As I understand his assertions, his machinery is specialised and unable to be utilised in the western part of New South Wales. I have already found that I do not accept this to be so.
I have dealt with the application by Mr C to obtain a mail run in O. He has assured me that it was never in his contemplation that he would operate the run but rather that he would put in a subcontractor and control the run from the Northern Rivers. I do not accept this. To my mind the application for the mail contract was no more than a sensible precaution to ensure a future stream of income in the event that the wife were not permitted to relocate with the children to the Northern Rivers.
I am satisfied that the mother has made some enquiries in respect of the children’s ongoing education. I am satisfied however on the evidence that I have heard that continuity of education will be of significant benefit to the elder son, particularly.

I am satisfied that the boys do have some affinity with the property on which they presently live and with the B area generally. The mother seems to ignore or at best minimise this. Her attitude seems to be that if she is allowed to relocate then the boys will re-establish themselves in their new home and their new area with little or no difficulty. I am not satisfied that this is so.
The husband for his part says that the children should have equal time with each parent. He can, he says, make arrangements so as to be available for the boys when they are with him and in the event that for whatever reason he is not personally available he can make proper and sensible arrangements. I accept from what I have seen of the husband that he would make proper arrangements for the boys.
In my view it would not be in the children’s best interests if the time they were to spend with their father were to be reduced. Certainly since the children returned to the B area their father has had an increased involvement with them which includes time both at weekends and midweek. As the children grow older I am of the view that the father’s ability to spend midweek time with them would become more significant and important. Apart from anything else it would give him a real opportunity to be directly involved in the children’s school and sporting activities. I consider this to be of very real significance for the wellbeing of the boys.
I have already set out the subsections of section 65DAA. It is clear that I propose to make an order for equal shared parental responsibility and therefore the matters set out in section 65DAA are matters that I must now deal with.
Whilst I have set out a number of matters which can be seen to be critical of the mother there is also evidence that establishes she was the primary caretaker for the children up to the time of separation and notwithstanding the increase of the father’s time with the children pursuant to the orders of the Brisbane registry, she has continued to fulfil that role. The evidence that I have heard indicates that the children have on the whole been well cared for by their mother in her present household. She wishes to continue to do this preferably in the Northern Rivers, but if not permitted to do that, in B.
The husband’s proposal is that the children move week and week about between the parties’ households. I am aware the husband says he can arrange his work hours to maximise his time with the children. However his proposal is untried to the extent of the children spending half their time with him.
Much has been said about the requirements for shared parenting to be a success. In my view and in summary form, the following matters appear significant:-
a)There must be proximity of households;
b)There must be an ability to communicate;
c)There must be a level of cooperation between the parties;
d)There must be a level of trust and respect between the parties.
So far as proximity is concerned, the father’s proposals would ensure the parties would need to live close by each other. The mother’s proposal is that the parties live respectively in the B and Northern Rivers areas. If that move were to take place it would clearly destroy any real proximity of the parties’ households.
There is clearly some level of communication between the parties. However, and at least for the foreseeable future, there is real dislike between these parties. The mother I perceive remains angry that the father will not acquiesce and agree to her plans to move to the Northern Rivers. That to my mind must effect both the ability of the parties to communicate with each other and the degree of trust and cooperation that could be found in their relationship.
To my mind, these aspects of communication, trust and cooperation are not sufficiently high to indicate that the parties could facilitate the children moving between households, so as to spend equal time in each.
Having considered these matters, as I am required to do, I have come to the conclusion that in the particular circumstances of this case it would not be appropriate for the children to spend equal time with each parent. I have come to the conclusion that the children should live with their mother with whom they had formed their primary attachment.
As I do not propose to order that the children spend equal time with each parent I must turn now to the further considerations of section 65DA and consider whether the child spending substantial and significant time with each of the parents would be in the best interests of the child.
Section 65DA (3) is in the following terms:
3) For the purposes of subsection (2), a child will be taken to spend substantial and significant time with a parent only if:
a)   the time the child spends with the parent includes both:
i)days that fall on weekends and holidays; and
ii)days that do not fall on weekends or holidays; and
b)   the time the child spends with the parent allows the parent to be involved in:
i)the child's daily routine; and
ii)occasions and events that are of particular significance to the child; and
c)    the time the child spends with the parent allows the child to be involved in occasions and events that are of special significance to the parent.
To my mind as I have already said it is important that the father have the opportunity to spend time with the boys midweek. I am satisfied that it is proper that I endeavour to make orders that give him time which is an appropriate mix of week and weekend and holiday and non-holiday time with the boys.
Section 65DAA (5) indicates that I should have regard to the matters set out therein in determining the reasonable practicability of such an order. I have regard to how far apart the parents would live as a result of my orders and so far as possible I have taken into account the parents’ capacity to implement the arrangements for time to be spent with each parent. I have taken into account and dealt with the parents’ current and future capacity for communication. I am satisfied that the impact on the children would in all the circumstances of this case be less than the impact that would result from them permanently relocating to the Northern Rivers.
I am satisfied that in this case it is appropriate for the children to spend time with their father from after school Thursday to before school Monday in each second week. That on my calculation is four nights in each fourteen. Additionally I propose to order that the boys spend every Tuesday night with their father from after school to before school Wednesday. That is an additional two nights in each fourteen day period for a total of six nights. To my mind that is an appropriate and satisfactory period of time in the circumstances of this case. It is also a proper mix of weekday and weekend time. This mix will enable the father to have ongoing involvement with the boys’ school activities as well as their sporting and leisure activities.
I am satisfied that it will be sensible for the father to collect the children from school on the occasions that they are to spend time with him during school term. However, I recognise that the father is in employment and not his own master. It would be naïve to think that there would not be times when he was unable to collect the boys. Accordingly I propose to order that the father collect the boys from school, and in the event of his unavailability then he is permitted to nominate some other person for the purpose of collecting and returning the children.
I will further order that the parties share school holidays. To my mind there is absolutely no reason why the parties should not share holiday time equally in both short and long holiday periods falling in each year.
I am satisfied that the father spending time with the children in this fashion would meet the needs of the children as best can be achieved. It would ensure they spend six nights in each fourteen with their father together with half of school holidays. Whilst this is not equal time it is certainly significant and substantial time as envisaged by the Family Law Act.
The orders that I propose to make mean of course that the mother would not be able to move with the children as she proposes, but would require her to remain in the B area. I accept the mother’s evidence that she will not leave the area without her sons. So that there is no misunderstanding I intend to order that the mother shall not relocate the children’s place of residence to a place outside the B local government area.
There can be no doubt pursuant to s 92 of the Commonwealth Constitution the mother is guaranteed the right to move freely throughout the Commonwealth. However as their Honours of the Full Court said in A & A the ultimate issue is the best interests of the children and to the extent of freedom of the parent to move impinges upon those interests then it must give way.
Clearly the orders that I will make will cause the mother a good deal of distress and unhappiness. It may well impact upon her relationship with Mr C although I do not believe that this will be the case. I am satisfied for the reasons I have set out that the wife and Mr C, in particular, have already set in place plans to provide a source of income in the B area. That to my mind indicates that, in the event of the mother not being permitted to relocate with the children, the wife and Mr C are looking towards establishing themselves in the B area.
Having said that I am aware that the mother’s unhappiness will be communicated to the children. The children may well be adversely effected by the knowledge of their mother’s unhappiness. However to my mind that is a lesser risk to the children’s wellbeing than severing the present close relationship they have with their father and members of both his family and the mother’s family.
My orders would mean the children will remain in an area with which they are familiar and in which they are comfortable. They will have time with their father on weekdays, at weekends and during school holidays. They will continue to see both their maternal and paternal grandparents and their paternal aunt in a manner and at a level which I am satisfied would not be possible were they to live with their mother in the Northern Rivers district. Their present schooling will not be interrupted.
I am satisfied that once the parties and the children are aware of the orders that I will make in this case, and once they understand the meaning and effect of these orders, the parties can then begin to put in place their plans for the future and the children can be reassured as to what the future holds for them.

I certify that the preceding one hundred and thirty six (136) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Collier

Associate:

Date: 8 May 2007

IT IS NOTED that this judgment for all publication and reporting purposes be referred to as RUSTON & BYFORD

[2007] FamCA 406

8 May 2007

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Family Law

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Procedural Fairness