Ulmarra and Radley

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ULMARRA & RADLEY

[2010] FamCA 41

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Relocation to Sydney – Schooling

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Part VII, ss 60B(1), 60B(3), 60CA, 60CC(2), 60CC(3), 61DA, 61DA(2)

C and S [1998] Fam CA 66
Morgan & Miles (2007) FLC 93-343
McCall & Clark (2009) FLC 93-405
Mazorski & Albright (2007) 37 Fam LR 518

APPLICANT:

Ms Ulmarra

RESPONDENT:

Mr Radley

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Ms Mahoney

FILE NUMBER:

PAC

4266

2009

DATE DELIVERED:

28 January 2010

PLACE DELIVERED:

Sydney

PLACE HEARD:

Sydney

JUDGMENT OF:

Johnston JR

HEARING DATE:

20 January 2010

REPRESENTATION

FOR THE APPLICANT:

Ms Ulmarra in person

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Mr White of Peter White & Associates

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Ms Mahoney of Adams & Partners Lawyers

Orders

That pending further order the parents shall have equal shared parental responsibility for the children A born on … February 1995 and E born on … October 1996.
That not later than 8 February 2010 the father restore the children’s primary residence to the Sydney Metropolitan Area, ensure that the children are re-enrolled at their previous schools and re-commence attendance at their schools not later than 9 February 2010, and continue to attend such schools pending further order.
That pending further order the said children shall live with their father in the Sydney Metropolitan Area.
That pending further order the said children shall spend time with their mother as follows:
(a)Each alternate weekend from 5:00 pm Friday to 5:00 pm Sunday during school term commencing on 12 February 2010;
(b)For half of each school holiday period, the father to have the first half of the holidays and the mother the second half (subject to special Christmas arrangements as set out below);
(c)       On Mother’s Day at times to be agreed between the parties;
(d)       From 2:00 pm Christmas Day until 5:00 pm Boxing Day each year;
(e)       At other times as may be agreed.
That pending further order the said children shall have liberal telephone communication with their mother.
That all parties have leave to re-list these proceedings on 14 days notice.
That the Application for Final Orders is listed for procedural hearing by telephone link with docket Registrar Bartlett at 11:00 am on 4 March 2010 in the Parramatta Registry.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Ulmarra & Radley is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

FILE NUMBER: PAC 4266 of 2009

MS ULMARRA

Applicant

And

MR RADLEY

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction and applications

These are interim parenting proceedings. The proceedings involve determination of the issue of whether it is in the interests of two children A born in February 1995 and E born in October 1996 for their primary residence to be relocated from Sydney to Geelong in Victoria.
The children’s parents are Ms Ulmarra and Mr Radley. For convenience I shall refer to them as “the mother” and “the father” respectively.
The mother filed an Initiating Application on 11 September 2009 which was made returnable on 19 October 2009. The mother sought interim orders to the effect that the father be restrained from removing the children from the Sydney Metropolitan Area. The mother also sought an order to the effect that if the respondent father had moved outside the Sydney area with the children then the children live primarily with their mother.
On the other hand, the father seeks interim orders to the effect that he be permitted to relocate the residence of the children from Sydney to Geelong. The father proposes that in circumstances where he is permitted to relocate such residence that the children spend each alternate weekend from Friday evening to Sunday late afternoon with their mother in Sydney as well as half of all school holidays. The father indicated that he would be prepared to fund airline travel by the children between Avalon Airport, near Geelong, and Sydney Airport for the purpose of these orders.

Background

The parents commenced cohabiting in 1992. They married in 1994 and they separated in late 1998.
At the time of separation the father left the former matrimonial home. The mother remained in the home with the children. She had formed a relationship with a male partner who was also living in the home.
A few months later the mother moved with the children to her partner’s mother’s home. There were difficulties in the father spending time with the children and the father commenced proceedings in the Local Court. Initially A lived with the father and E lived with her mother. But there were problems with this and the father formed the view that this was not in A’s interest. He permitted A to move back to live with his sister and his mother.
Then the father commenced extensive travel interstate. He spent a weekend once a month with the children and he regularly telephoned them.
In August 2000 there was a serious problem concerning the mother’s care of the children. The parties present different versions of what occurred. The father said that the police removed the children from the mother and placed them in his care. The mother denied this and said that in fact the police were not involved. The father said that the mother had been assaulted by Mr S, the mother’s partner. In any event, whichever version might be correct, it is common ground that from this time the children lived primarily with their father.
The father reactivated his proceedings in the Local Court and those proceedings were transferred to this Court.
On 11 April 2001 this Court made orders to the effect that the children were to live with their father and spend alternate weekends from 5:00 pm Friday to 5:00 pm Sunday with their mother as well as half the school holidays and certain other periods.
In October 2002 the mother either retained the children or otherwise took the children into her care preventing them from resuming their residence with their father. The father applied for a recovery order which duly issued and apparently there were orders suspending the mother’s time with the children.
But after a period the father agreed to the children spending alternate weekends and half school holidays with their mother which all parties agree was generally in accordance with the orders of 11 April 2001.
Early in 2009 the father informed the mother that he wanted to move to Geelong in Victoria. The father’s family reside in that area. The mother said that for many years the father has wanted to move to the area. There is a real dispute between the parties about whether the mother agreed to the father relocating the children’s residence. On the one hand the father asserts that he had various discussions with the mother during 2009 and that the mother agreed that he could relocate the children’s residence to Geelong. In particular he says that the mother participated in his decision to purchase a home for himself and the children to live in Geelong and that the mother helped him select D School at Geelong as the children’s school.
The mother denies such assertions. She says that the father simply informed her that he was going to purchase the particular home and that she denies that she had any involvement in any selection of D School as being the school in which the children would be enrolled.
In August 2009 the father purchased a home in a suburb of Geelong. Notwithstanding the father being on notice of the filing by the mother of her application on 11 September 2009, the father moved with the children to Geelong before Christmas and he has enrolled them at D School. He anticipates that they will commence at the School very soon.

Submissions

It was submitted on behalf of the father that the father does not propose to reduce the time which the children spend with their mother. It is submitted that the father informed the mother a long time ago that he wanted to relocate the children’s residence to Geelong. It was also submitted that, as indicted above, the mother participated in the selection of the home that the father proposed to purchase for him and the children to live in at Geelong. It was further submitted, as also indicated above, that the mother helped the father select D School as the children’s school. It was also submitted that D School is a well-regarded private school with excellent facilities for both children including facilities to assist E in her special needs. It was submitted that there would be more support for the children in Geelong because members of the father’s family live there. The father has enrolled the children in a course at an Aboriginal cultural establishment so that aspects of their cultural heritage will be able to be enhanced through this commitment. It was submitted that if the father was required to return to Sydney this would not be consistent with the best interests of the children because the father no longer has a job in Sydney nor does he have a home in Sydney because the former home of himself and the children has been rented out.
On the other hand it was submitted by the mother that not to require the children to be returned to living in Sydney and resuming attendance at their previous schools would be inconsistent with their best interests. The mother submitted that E had developed a very good support group both at school and amongst her circle of friends which if she stayed at Geelong she would lose and she would have to start developing such supports over again. It was submitted that in Sydney the children are aware of their Aboriginal country, their tribe and not only do they attend Aboriginal Church on Sundays but they also participate in youth functions. The mother also submitted that it is not possible for her to relocate her residence to Geelong. She has her relationship in Sydney, she has full time employment in Sydney and her whole life is very much lived in Sydney. The mother said that the children have a very close relationship with her and with their wider maternal family and that any reduction of time in this regard would not be in their interests. The mother said that since 2008 she had been seeing the children on most days because she had attended the father’s home with his permission on most days to spend time with the children. However the mother said that this has not occurred since approximately July because the father stopped her doing this. The mother said that since the father first raised with her his desire to relocate the children’s residence to Geelong she has informed him that she did not wish this to happen. She said she even made appointments for mediation but the father did not attend mediation.

Discussion

How the Court is to go about determining a parenting application is provided for in Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975. Sub-section 60B(1) sets out the objects of the Part. These include ensuring that the best interests of children are met by the following:
·Ensuring that children have the benefit of both of their parents having a meaningful involvement in their lives, to the maximum extent consistent with the best interests of the child;
·Protecting children from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence;
·Ensuring that children receive adequate and proper parenting to help them achieve their full potential and
·Ensuring that parents fulfil their duties, and meet their responsibilities, concerning the care, welfare and development of their children.
The principles underlying these objects are as follows:
·Children have the right to know and be cared for by both their parents, regardless of whether their parents are married, separated, have never married or have never lived together; and
·Children have a right to spend time on a regular basis with, and communicate on a regular basis with, both their parents and other people significant to their care, welfare and development; and
·Parents jointly share duties and responsibilities concerning the care, welfare and development of their children; and
·Children have a right to enjoy their culture (including the right to enjoy that culture with other people who share that culture).
Significantly in relation to the last matter s 60B(3) of the Act provides in effect that an Aboriginal child’s right to enjoy his or her Aboriginal culture includes the right:
·To maintain a connection with that culture and
·To have the support, opportunity and encouragement necessary to explore the full extent of that culture consistent with the child’s age and developmental level and views and to develop a positive appreciation of that culture.
Section 60CA of the Act provides that in deciding whether to make a particular parenting order in relation to a child, a court must regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration.
How the court goes about determining what is in a child’s best interests is informed by ss 60CC(2) and (3) of the Act. Firstly, the primary considerations are the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of the child’s parents and the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence.
Pausing at this point, there is no issue that these children have been benefiting from having a meaningful relationship with each of their parents. This is not something which the children’s father wishes to interrupt. It is clear that he has supported the children’s relationship with their mother in the past and there is every reason to accept that he will support the children’s relationship continuing with their mother in the event that he is permitted to remain living with the children at Geelong. But of course it remains to be considered whether what the father proposes for the children will in real terms enable them to continue to have a meaningful relationship with their mother.
I turn to consider the additional considerations set out in s 60CC(3) of the Act.
The first of these is any views expressed by the children and any factors such as their maturity or level of understanding that are relevant to the weight that should be given to the child’s views.
The Independent Children's Lawyer has informed the Court that these children are very articulate. The Independent Children's Lawyer has indicated that both children have expressed a strong view to continue to live with their father. They have not expressed any clear view about where they wish to live, in terms of location, except that they want to live with their father. The Independent Children's Lawyer also indicated that one of the children has informed her that that child does not wish to travel to Sydney.
The next consideration is the nature of the relationship of the children with each of their parents and other persons including relatives. There is no expert opinion before the Court about this matter. It is clear, however, that these children have close relationships with their father. But the Independent Children's Lawyer has also indicated that the children are very close to their mother and to their wider maternal family. Learned Independent Children's Lawyer submitted that because of this very close relationship that the children have with their mother and maternal family, she would be concerned if there was any reduction in the time which the children spend with their mother, particularly in the case of E who has special needs.
The next consideration is the willingness and ability of each of the children’s parents to facilitate, and encourage, a close and continuing relationship between each child and the other parent. In my view there is no real issue about the willingness of each of the parents to do this. History has demonstrated that the mother, at least in more recent years, has been able to facilitate the children’s relationship with their father. There was the earlier incident when the mother retained the children and it was necessary for a recovery order to issue. But there has not been any repetition of any such behaviour now for a long time. On the other hand the father has demonstrated that he has been able to facilitate a continuing relationship between the children and their mother. He has given this Court every indication that in the event that he is permitted to retain the children’s primary residence in Geelong that he would be committed to ensuring regular travel by the children to Sydney to ensure that they are able to maintain and further develop their relationship with their mother.
The next consideration is the likely effect of any changes in the children’s circumstances including that on the child of any separation from either parent or any other significant person with whom the child has been living. Obviously because these children have now lived for some years with their father a removal from him as their primary parent to residing with their mother would be a significant change for them especially in circumstances where they have expressed a strong view to be permitted to continue to live primarily with their father. One might anticipate psychological, emotional and practical difficulties for the children by such a course. On the other hand a separation in practical terms from the children’s mother would also be likely to cause similar problems because of the close relationship which they have with her. There are also cultural aspects in relation to this consideration which I shall refer below.
The next consideration is the practical difficulty and expense of the children spending time with and communicating with their mother and whether such difficulty or expense would substantially affect their right to maintain their relationships with both of their parents on a regular basis.
In my view this is a serious consideration in the present case. If the children remain living at Geelong the father proposes to arrange for their travel each alternate weekend and during each school holiday period from Avalon Airport to Sydney Airport and then to return at the end of the period again using the airline facilities. In my view there are real practical and cost complexities in this. The father says that the cost is not an issue because he would be able easily to fund it on the basis that his income from his position at Geelong vastly exceeds that which he had been earning in his previous job in Sydney. In my view some caution should be exercised in relation to this and one would feel much more comfortable if there was appropriate opportunity to test this in a substantive hearing. For example, one ponders the question about what might happen if the husband was to lose his present more lucrative employment and either be faced with no employment or a level of income which was much closer to that which he had been receiving in earlier times. One would anticipate that at some point there might not be the income in the father’s household necessary to fund the travel which he offers at this time. There is no question that the mother would be unable to contribute in any real way to such cost because her circumstances are very modest. But there are other practical issues including the logistics of the travel arrangements which in my view have a level of complexity. But more worrying still, in my view, would be the preparedness and ability of the children to be able to undertake all this travel from Geelong to Sydney on the regular basis as proposed by the father. As indicated above, one of the children has informed the Independent Children's Lawyer that that child does not wish to be in the position of having to travel to Sydney at all, let alone each alternate weekend and school holidays. In any event in the case of a child who is almost 15 years of age, one can only wonder how this Court would be able to compel such a child to undertake the somewhat onerous travel arrangements involved in what the father proposes. If the child was not prepared to do this that would almost certainly risk that child’s relationship with the mother even being able to be maintained let alone further developed. Accordingly, in my view, there are real practical difficulties in these children being able to spend time with their mother in accordance with what their father proposes.

To the extent that it might be suggested that such practical difficulties could be overcome by the mother travelling regularly to Geelong, funded by the father, the mother has indicated that she does not wish to do this and that she has commitments in Sydney including her relationship, her employment and her cultural life which would make it impossible for her to be able to travel regularly to Geelong in an endeavour to preserve her relationship with the children.
There have not been any recent difficulties in terms of the children being able to maintain their relationships and have regular time with both parents under the arrangements which were previously in place in Sydney. In fact, as indicated above, it appears to be the case that, until some months ago, the children were seeing their mother most days notwithstanding the fact that their primary residence was with their father. This appears to have been an arrangement which worked very well in terms of the children’s interests.
The next consideration is the capacity of each of the children’s parents to provide for their needs including their emotional and intellectual needs. There is no question that this has been a real strength of the children’s father in that he has provided very capably in respect of these matters now over some years. He has been able to maintain continuity of employment thereby enabling him to provide appropriately for the children but he has also been able to parent them in every appropriate sense, at least on all indicators before the Court at this point. On the other hand, there are some reservations in terms of the mother’s parenting capacity. The children’s mother has acknowledged that in earlier years she has had real difficulty in terms of substance and alcohol abuse. And she has not always been able to ensure a violence-free home for them. There are some question marks about some of the earlier behaviour of her partner in relation to the children. Thankfully, in recent years, such matters appear not to have been evident. To the mother’s credit there is no evidence of difficulties in terms of family violence or substance abuse, certainly not since 2006.
The next consideration is that these children have a right to enjoy their Aboriginal culture, including the right to enjoy such culture with other people who share that culture. As indicated above, the children’s mother informed the Court that matters of Aboriginal cultural have been actively enjoyed and participated in by these children. There has been a structure of Aboriginal cultural opportunity for the children which they have participated in and enjoyed. The mother says that the children not only attend their Aboriginal Church on Sundays but, as indicated above, they also attend numerous youth functions. Their mother, as indicated above, said that they know their country and their tribe. The mother says that if the children are not returned to the Sydney area then such opportunity will be interrupted and possibly lost.
On the other hand the father says that he has enrolled the children in an Aboriginal cultural establishment in the area where they are living at Geelong but that they have not yet had their first opportunity to enjoy participation in the opportunities offered by such establishment. Such opportunity will be available in a couple of weeks. The father says that in view of their Aboriginal background he is committed to continuing to assist them to find and enjoy opportunities to continue and develop these cultural aspects of their lives.
The next consideration is the attitude to the children and to the responsibilities of parenthood demonstrated by each of the children’s parents. Generally the evidence points to the parents’ respective attitudes in relation to this matter as being appropriate. Each of them has been responsible, certainly in recent years and they give this Court every impression that they have their children’s best interests at heart. Having said this, however, in my view, the father’s unilateral removal of the children to reside at Geelong in the face of what appears to be the mother’s clear opposition to this reflects adversely to some extent on his attitude to the responsibilities of parenthood. It might be that in the fullness of time, when there is opportunity to test each of the parties’ evidence in respect of this matter, that the Court might arrive at a different view. But on the material before the Court at the present time the father appears to have given little weight to the desires of the children’s mother for them to remain in the area where they have mostly lived their lives until they attain a greater level of maturity than at present.
The next consideration is any family violence involving the child or any member of the child’s family. Regrettably, as indicated above, violence has been a feature in the mother’s household from time to time. As also indicated above, there is no evidence of any occurrence of violence in the mother’s household now for some years. There is no evidence that the children are vulnerable to any violence in their father’s household.
When the orders were made by this Court on 11 April 2001 the first order was to the effect that the parties retain joint responsibility for the long term care, welfare and development of the children. I am not aware that this joint responsibility has ever been altered by any subsequent order.
Sub-section 61DA of the Act provides in effect that when making a parenting order in relation to a child the Court must apply a presumption that it is in the best interests of a child for the child’s parents to have equal shared parental responsibility for the child. Sub-section 61DA(2) provides that the presumption does not apply if there are reasonable grounds to believe that a parent has engaged in abuse of the child or family violence. Although, as indicated above, there has been some history of violence some time ago in the mother’s household in my view this is not a matter where at this point this Court would remove joint or shared parental responsibility. This is because, as I have said above, there is no recent evidence of violence and the more recent history of parenting reflects well on the capacities of the parents to appropriately parent their children.
There was some indication by the mother that she was pursuing an equal time parenting arrangement so that upon the children being returned to Sydney they would live equally in each household. To the extent that the mother might be pursuing such an order at this point, in my view it would not be in the best interests of the children for the parents to have something approaching an equal time arrangement. The reasons for this are as follows. As indicated above, the children have indicated a strong view to live primarily with their father. The recent history now over some years is that the children have been living primarily with their father and all the indicators demonstrate that such an arrangement has promoted their best interests. In addition, there are some historical negatives in the mother’s household, at least in the previous years as indicated above. In any event, a dramatic shift in residence from the children being primarily resident with their father to being in a shared arrangement with their mother is not a course which is supported at this stage by the Independent Children's Lawyer.
In my view, weighing the evidence in relation to the above statutory considerations leads clearly to the view that the best interests of these children at this time lie in them continuing to reside primarily with their father.
Having said this the Court is to consider whether the children spending substantial and significant time with each of their parents would be in the best interests of the children. This is provided in s 65DAA(2)(c) of the Act. The Court is also to consider whether such is reasonably practicable. I shall consider this further below.

Should the children be required to reside in Sydney pending further order?

Clearly the guiding principle is the best interests of the children.
There are numerous positives for these children in what their father proposes by shifting their residence to Geelong. He has purchased a home for them, he has been able to obtain employment which is remunerated at a significantly higher level than what his previous employment had attracted and the father has relatives in the area whom he says would be available to offer support to himself and the children. In addition there is of course the excitement of commencing to live in a new place with opportunity for new friendships and relationships and educational opportunities.
But what is proposed is not all positive. The single greatest deficiency is that the children would lose their ready access to their mother and maternal extended family and to some extent their friends and their Aboriginal culture. It is submitted on behalf of the father that in fact there would be little difference between what he proposes in this regard and what the children had enjoyed previously in Sydney. This was said to be on the basis that the children would be able to fly to Sydney each alternate weekend and half of the school holidays and spend a similar amount of time with their mother to that which they had enjoyed prior to moving to Geelong.
In my view the Court should be most careful not simply to consider this aspect of the matter in terms only of the quantity of time spent between the children and their mother and other significant persons. The practicalities of what the father proposes in this regard require careful scrutiny in my view. I have already expressed some reservation about the logistics of what is proposed which even at their best will involve the children in a lot of travel. But whether in reality the practical demands on the father, the children and the mother in what is proposed will be able to survive the ravages of time is something about which the Court, at least at this interim stage, must have a very serious concern. There has been no real opportunity for exploration of the likely success of this arrangement and the capacity of all the persons involved to be able to continue to undertake their various responsibilities in this regard.
Another alternative proposed by the father would be that he would provide the mother with fortnightly return airline tickets to enable her to fly from Sydney to Geelong, live with him and the children in his home for the weekend and then return to Sydney. The mother did not seriously entertain this offer. She said that she would not wish to reside in the father’s home and that she would not wish to put herself through all that would be involved in the travelling arrangements. In any event, she did not think this was anywhere near the equivalent of the opportunity which the children had been enjoying to continue their relationship with her in Sydney in her household and with her extended family.
One must also consider whether it might be possible for the mother to relocate her own residence to the Geelong or Melbourne area in order to be proximate to the children and be able to participate readily in their lives through that proximity. As indicated above, the mother informed the Court that she has recently obtained full-time work, that she values that job, that she has a relationship with her partner in Sydney, that she has her extended family in Sydney and that she has her Aboriginal lifestyle in Sydney. In all these circumstances, she regarded it as completely unrealistic for it to be suggested that she might be able to relocate her residence to the Melbourne area.
On the other hand, what factors stand in the way of the father moving the children back to their previous residential area in Sydney? Firstly the father has availed himself of this well-remunerated employment which he would be most reluctant to relinquish. He says that he has never been able to earn income at anything like the level that he can in his present position at Geelong and that, amongst other things, a higher level of available income means that he can offer more to the children.
In addition, the father no longer has a home in Sydney for the children by reason of the fact that he has rented such out. He no longer has a job in Sydney. He says that he does not have anything like the family support in Sydney which is available to him and the children at Geelong. It is submitted on his behalf that if he was required to relocate the children to Sydney this would cost him an amount in excess of $50 000, an amount which he says he simply cannot afford.
I must say there has been reluctance by this Court to make orders permitting significant relocation of the residence of children in the absence of a substantive hearing, particularly in circumstances where there has been a recent unilateral relocation.
I note that the Full Court of this Court said in its decision in the case of C and S [1998] Fam CA 66 as follows (per Warnick J):
In my view it is clear that the interests of any child or children, including the children here, are very much connected with any questions directly affecting those children, such as a relocation, being determined by a Court without the impediment of a situation of recent development, which situation significantly alters the relationship of the child in the circumstances of the child with regard to one of its parents from what it or they had been immediately beforehand.
I also note that Boland J in the case of Morgan & Miles (2007) FLC 93-343 said as follows at page 81,871:
It appears to me that the very difficult issues in cases involving a relocation, which difficulties are highlighted in the cases and referred to by the Family Law Council in its 2006 report Relocation: a report to the Attorney-General prepared by the Family Law Council, (Family Law Council of Australia, Barton 2006) make it highly desirable that, except in cases of emergency, the arrangements which will be in the child’s best interests should not be determined in an abridged interim hearing, and these are the type of cases in which the child’s present stability may be extremely relevant on an interim basis. …
Bearing these observations in mind, in my view it would be a very serious matter indeed to make orders the effect of which would be to continue the children’s residence in Geelong at this interim stage especially in the face of the mother’s very strong opposition to such relocation. To leave the children in the current arrangements in Geelong would, in my view, almost certainly entrench such arrangements as the long term arrangements for the children. This would be because by the time of a substantive hearing the children would be likely to have settled down in school and to have developed the usual network of friends and the usual interests that children of such ages develop from which it would be very difficult to remove them because such would almost certainly then be adverse to their best interests. The problem then would be that there would be a real risk that the children might become deprived of a meaningful relationship with their mother.
What is involved in such a meaningful relationship was the subject of observations by the Full Court of this Court in the case of McCall & Clark (2009) FLC 93-405. At page 83,475 the Full Court approved the following passage by Brown J in Mazorski & Albright (2007) 37 Fam LR 518:
What these definitions convey is that “meaningful”, when used in the context of “meaningful relationship” is synonymous with “significant” which, in turn, is generally used as a synonym for “important” or “of consequence”. I proceed on the basis that when considering the primary considerations and the application of the object and principles, a meaningful relationship or a meaningful involvement is one which is important, significant and valuable to the child. It is a qualitative adjective, not a strictly quantitive one.
It is clear that these children had been having a close relationship with their mother in Sydney and that this has been important and significant and is obviously valuable to the children.

Conclusion

I am not persuaded that at this interim stage, the best interests of these children lie in orders to the effect that they be permitted to continue to live at Geelong. Such would involve a very significant change for these children and for the reasons indicated above might imperil their very close relationship with their mother, their extended maternal family and affect their opportunity to continue to maintain and develop their Aboriginal culture. These are very serious matters which ought properly be determined in the context of a substantive hearing at which there would be appropriate opportunity for the many and various issues relevant to the ultimate decision to be properly tested and ventilated. In my view the best interests of these children would be served by such opportunity.
Having said this it should be clear from what has been referred to above that the Court remains mindful of the very serious effect this will have on the father in terms of his lifestyle, employment and financial circumstances.

I certify that the preceding sixty (60) paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judicial Registrar W P Johnston

Associate:

Date: 28 January 2010

[2010] FamCA 41

28 January 2010

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Family Law

Legal Concepts

Procedural Fairness

Remedies