FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| WALCOTT & WALCOTT | [2020] FamCA 218 |
| FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – INTERNATIONAL RELOCATION – relevant legal and factual considerations – best interests of the child – mother wanting to move back to New Zealand where she is a citizen – mother wanting to move for reasons of her own support network, study and employment opportunities and mental health – one psychologist called for the mother could not be relied upon as an expert – young child involved – where there is risk that the father’s relationship will be diminished if not extinguished during the developmental stage of the child’s life if relocation ordered – mother’s application refused. |
| Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss 60B, 60CA, 60CC, 61DA, 65DAA Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act 2006 (Cth) |
| Amador & Amador (2009) 43 Fam LR 268 AMS & AIF (1999) 199 CLR 160 Banks & Banks [2015] FamCAFC 36 |
| The Honourable Justice Richard Chisholm, To What Extent Can The Court Make Orders That Inhibit a Parent's Right To Relocate? Sampson v Hartnett (No 10) (2008) Australian Family Law Bulletin 934 |
| APPLICANT: | Ms Walcott |
| RESPONDENT: | Mr Walcott |
| FILE NUMBER: | MLC | 738 | of | 2019 |
| DATE DELIVERED: | 8 April 2020 |
| PLACE DELIVERED: | Melbourne |
| PLACE HEARD: | Melbourne |
| JUDGMENT OF: | The Honourable Justice Wilson |
| HEARING DATE: | 6 & 7 January and 7 February 2020 |
| DATE OF FINAL WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: | 10 March 2020 |
SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED FROM:
| COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: | Mr R Hoult |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: | Waters Lawyers |
| COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Mr W Henwood |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Randles Cooper |
REPRESENTATION
| COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: | Mr R Hoult |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: | Waters Lawyers |
| COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Not applicable |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Randles Cooper |
Orders
The applicant’s application filed 23 January 2019 to relocate to New Zealand is dismissed.
By 4pm on 22 April 2020 the parties are to email to my chambers minutes of the ongoing parenting orders in this proceeding.
Note: The form of the…
Continue reading Walcott & Walcott
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Walcott & Walcott [2020] FamCA 218
- Case
- [2020] FamCA 218
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether to grant the applicant's application for relocation of the child to New Zealand. This required the court to consider the best interests of the child in accordance with relevant family law principles.
Justice Wilson dismissed the applicant's application to relocate. The court's reasoning and the specific principles applied are not detailed in the provided text. However, the outcome indicates that the court determined relocation was not in the child's best interests.
The court ordered that by 4pm on 22 April 2020, the parties were to email minutes of the ongoing parenting orders to chambers, with the form of the order subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The applicant’s application filed 23 January 2019 to relocate to New Zealand is dismissed.
2.
By 4pm on 22 April 2020 the parties are to email to my chambers minutes of the ongoing parenting orders in this proceeding.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.
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.