Wiley & Wiley

The appeal before the court involved a dispute between the parents of two children, concerning the relocation of the children from New South Wales to a town near Melbourne. The mother sought to relocate with the children, while the father opposed this move. The trial judge allowed the relocation, with provisions for the children to spend holidays and some weekends with the father in New South Wales. The father appealed, arguing that the trial judge had failed to adequately consider the impact of the mother's mental health and the relocation itself on the children. He also contended that the trial judge had misapplied section 65DAA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), citing relevant Full Court decisions.

The court examined the arguments and assessed whether the trial judge had erred in his discretionary judgments. The court highlighted the presumption in favour of the correctness of such discretionary judgments, as underscored in previous cases. It found that the father’s claims lacked merit and did not identify any errors that warranted overturning the trial judge's decision. The court emphasised that the trial judge had considered all relevant factors, including the children's best interests, and had not made any significant mistakes in his assessment.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original orders made by the trial judge were upheld. Additionally, the court declined to make a costs order in relation to the appeal, meaning that the mother would not be entitled to costs if the father's appeal had been successful. The court's decision underscored the importance of the trial judge's discretionary power in family law matters, particularly when decisions impact the welfare of children.