Wagstaff & Wagstaff

Case [2021] FedCFamC2F 507


FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 2)

Wagstaff & Wagstaff [2021] FedCFamC2F 507

File number(s): MLC 8730 of 2016
Judgment of: DEPUTY CHIEF JUDGE MERCURI
Date of judgment: 8 December 2021
Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – application for final parenting orders – relocation application – consideration of whether there should be a change of children’s school - whether the non-resident parent ought to move closer to the primary carer – consideration of the best interests of children – consideration of what constitutes substantial and significant time – consideration of distance between the parent’s homes – final parenting orders made.    
Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60B, 60CA, 60CC, 61DA, 65DA, 65DAA
Cases cited:

Denham v Newsham [2020] FamCA 271

Godfrey & Sanders [2007] FamCA 102

Marriage of K & Z (1997) 22 Fam LR 382

Division: Division 2 Family Law
Date of last submission/s: 23 August 2021
Date of hearing: 16, 17 & 23 August 2021
Number of paragraphs: 217
Place: Melbourne
Counsel for the Applicant: Ms Smallwood
Counsel for the Respondent: Ms Bonney
Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer: Mr Kanarev

ORDERS

MLC 8730 of 2016

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:

MS WAGSTAFF

Applicant

AND:

MR WAGSTAFF

Respondent

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER

order made by:

DEPUTY CHIEF JUDGE MERCURI

DATE OF ORDER:

8 December 2021

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.All previous orders be discharged

2.The parents have equal shared parental responsibility for the children of the marriage, namely:

(a)X born in 2011 (‘X’); and

(b)Y born in 2014 (‘Y’) (‘the children’).

3.The children live with the mother.

4.By the commencement of term 2 of 2022, the mother is to live within 20 kilometres of Town A School.

5.The children spend time and communicate with the father as follows:

(a)each alternate weekend from the conclusion of school on Thursday (or 3:30pm if a non-school day) until the commencement of school on Monday (or 9:00am if a non-school day);

(b)in the following week, from the conclusion of school on Thursday (or 3:30pm if a non-school day) until the commencement of school on Friday (or 9:00am if a non-school day);

(c)half of each of the school term holidays as agreed between the parties in writing and failing agreement, the father to have the second half in odd years and the first half in even years with changeover to occur at 5:00pm on the middle Saturday of the term holidays unless otherwise agreed between the parties in writing;

(d)half of the long summer school holidays as agreed between the parties in writing, and failing agreement, the father to have the second half in odd years and the first half in even years with changeover to occur at 5:00pm on the first Saturday of January each year unless otherwise agreed between the parties in writing;

(e)in the event that the father’s birthday does not fall on a day that the father would normally spend time with the children, the children spend time with the father from 10:00am until…

Continue reading Wagstaff & Wagstaff

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Wagstaff & Wagstaff [2021] FedCFamC2F 507
Case
[2021] FedCFamC2F 507
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Wagstaff & Wagstaff concerned an application for final parenting orders regarding the children X born in 2011 and Y born in 2014. The central issue was whether the mother should be permitted to remain living in Town D, thereby necessitating changes to the children’s school and their time with their father, or whether the mother should move closer to Town A, allowing the children to remain at their current school and maintain their existing time arrangements with their father. The court was required to consider various factors, including the children’s best interests, their connection to their current school, and the impact on their relationship with both parents.

Deputy Chief Judge Mercuri found that the children had a strong attachment to their current school and community in Town A, which provided them with stability and a sense of belonging. The children’s clearly expressed views, supported by the family consultant's report, underscored their desire to remain in the Town A area. The court also considered the potential negative impact on the children’s relationship with their father if the mother were to remain in Town D, as it would significantly reduce the quality and quantity of their time together. While the mother’s desire to move on with her life and live with her partner, Mr F, was acknowledged, the court found that the children’s best interests were best served by them remaining in Town A, attending their current school, and maintaining the existing time arrangements with their father.

Accordingly, the court ordered that the children remain at Town A Primary School and that the mother relocate to within 20 km of the school by the commencement of term 2 in 2022. The existing time arrangements with the father were to remain unchanged. The court also noted that the mother’s reasons for moving to Town D, while not compelling, were relevant to the overall determination. The decision aimed to balance the mother’s desire for a new life with the children’s need for stability and continuity in their environment and relationships.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.