Yarad and Farmakis
[2011] FMCAfam 514
•9 June 2011
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| YARAD & FARMAKIS | [2011] FMCAfam 514 |
| FAMILY LAW – Parenting timing of overseas travel with the father – retention of child’s passport by the Registry Manager. |
| Family Law Act 1975, ss.60B, 60CA, 60CC, 61DA, 65DAA |
| Applicant: | MS YARAD |
| Respondent: | MR FARMAKIS |
| File Number: | MLC 8074 of 2009 |
| Judgment of: | Riley FM |
| Hearing dates: | 3, 4 & 11 March 2011 and 26 May 2011 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 26 May 2011 |
| Delivered at: | Melbourne |
| Delivered on: | 9 June 2011 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Self represented |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Self represented |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Self represented |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Self represented |
| Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer (on 26 May 2011 only): | Ms Buchanan |
| Solicitors for the Independent Children’s Lawyer (from 14 April 2011 only): | Septimus Jones and Lee |
ORDERS BY CONSENT:
The parents have equal shared parental responsibility for [X] born [in] 2007 (“[X]”).
[X] live with his mother.
[X] spend time with his father:
(a)from 8.30am on Saturday or, if [X] has Chinese School, from 12.30pm on Saturday, to 8am on Monday each alternate week;
(b)from 8.30am on Saturday or, if [X] has Chinese School, from 12.30pm to 6.30pm on Saturday each other week;
(c)from 8.30am on Good Friday to 8am Easter Monday each alternate year, commencing in 2011;
(d)from 7.30am on Christmas Eve to 8am on 27 December (or 8am on 28 December, should 27 December be a public holiday) each alternate year, commencing in 2011;
(e)from 6pm on 31 December (or 8.30am should 31 December fall on a weekend) to 8am on 2 January (or 8am on 3 January, should 2 January be a public holiday) each alternate year, commencing in 2012;
(f)from 8.30am on Saturday or if [X] has Chinese School, from 12.30pm on Saturday, to 8am on Monday on the weekend prior to or including Swedish Midsummer.
(g)on Australia Day from 8.30am to 7pm, each alternate year, commencing in 2012;
(h)on the Labour Day weekend from 8.30am on Saturday until 8am on Tuesday each alternate year, commencing in 2012;
(i)on the weekend prior to or including Anzac Day each alternate year, commencing in 2012;
(j)on the Queen’s Birthday weekend, from 8.30am on Saturday to 8am on Tuesday, each alternate year, commencing in 2012;
(k)during April 2011 when [X]’s paternal grandmother is visiting:
(i)from 5pm on 8 April 2011 to 8am on 11 April 2011;
(ii)from 5pm on 15 April 2011 to 7pm on 18 April 2011;
(iii)from 5pm on 21 April 2011 to 7pm on 26 April 2011; and
(iv)from 5pm on 29 April 2011 to 8am on 2 May 2011;
(l)should the father’s relatives visit from Sweden, then [X] spend time with his father:
(i)from 12.30pm on Saturday to 8am on Monday for four consecutive weekends; and
(ii)for an additional full week;
(m)on Father’s Day from 8.30am to 7pm each year.
[X]’s time with his father is suspended on the weekend prior to or including Chinese New Year, Dragon Boat Festival, Mid-Autumn Festival or Winter Solstice.
The question of [X]’s time with his father once [X] starts school be reserved.
Changeover occur as follows:
(a)each Saturday, the father collect [X] from the mother’s house at 8.30am, or, if Chinese school is operating, from Chinese School at 12.30pm;
(b)the mother collect [X] from the father’s house at 8am on Monday each alternate week;
(c)the mother collect [X] from the father’s house at 6.30pm on Saturday each other week.
[X] spend time with his mother on Mother’s Day from 8.30am to 7pm each year.
All applications concerning [X]’s schooling are withdrawn.
Pursuant to s.65DA(2) of the Family Law Act 1975, the particulars of the obligations these orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these orders are set out in Attachment A and these particulars are included in these orders.
ORDERS BY THE COURT
The mother, and from July 2013, the father, may take [X] out of the Commonwealth of Australia for a maximum of four weeks at a time provided that:
(a)except in the case of an emergency, the travelling parent give the other parent four weeks written notice of the:
(i)proposed dates of travel;
(ii)the itinerary; and
(iii)the address and telephone number of the premises where [X] will be staying;
(b)when [X] is overseas, the parent who he is not with may telephone him three times per week and the travelling parent shall facilitate the call;
(c)after [X] returns to Australia, from any trip with his mother, [X] shall have make up time with his father during the following eight weeks.
The mother lodge [X]’s passport with the Registry Manager of the Federal Magistrates Court within seven days.
The Registry Manager release [X]’s passport to either parent upon receiving written consent from both parents.
Upon return from overseas travel, the travelling parent return [X]’s passport to the Registry Manager within seven days.
AND THE COURT NOTES THAT:
Pursuant to s.62B of the Family Law Act 1975, information about courses, programs and services to help with adjusting to the consequences of those orders are set out in Attachment A.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Yarad & Farmakis is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE |
MLC 8074 of 2009
| MS YARAD |
Applicant
And
| MR FARMAKIS |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction
This is an application for parenting orders in respect of [X] born [in] 2007 (“[X]”). [X]’s parents were married in Hong Kong on [date omitted] 2005. They lived apart for certain periods and finally separated in December 2007, when [X] was about six months old. Since then, [X] has lived predominantly with his mother and has spent time with his father.
To their credit, [X]’s parents were able to agree on most matters concerning [X]’s care. However, [X]’s parents were unable to resolve certain issues concerning his schooling, the amount and configuration of the time [X] should spend with his father after [X] starts school, when [X] should be able to travel overseas with his father, and whether [X]’s passport should be retained by his mother or held by the Registry Manager of this court.
In relation to schooling, the mother proposed that [X] should attend [W] School, which the father described as a Christian fundamentalist school. The father opposed [X] attending that school, and submitted that [X] should attend either a State school or a more usual Christian school.
However, the parties accepted that [X] should not start school until 2013. Additionally, there is some doubt about whether the mother will be able to afford to send [X] to [W] School, given that the fees are about $6,000 per year. The is also some doubt about whether the mother will be able to continue living in the area where she currently resides, given that she is receiving accommodation through friends at her Church, and that arrangement is susceptible to change.
In the circumstances, the parents and the independent children’s lawyer considered that it would be premature to try to resolve the question of [X]’s schooling at this stage. The parents and the independent children’s lawyer considered that it would be best to reserve the question of [X]’s schooling until about mid 2012. At that stage, it is expected that some important factors relating to [X]’s schooling will be more clearly known than can be at present.
That being so, the father considered that it would also be preferable to reserve the question of the time that [X] will spend with him, until after [X] starts school. That was because the school [X] attends might have a bearing on the amount and configuration of the time that [X] should spend with his father. The mother and the independent children’s lawyer were in agreement with that approach.
As to overseas travel, both parents wish to be able to take [X] overseas. The mother is from Hong Kong and her family remains there. She would like [X] to be able learn about his Chinese culture and know the Chinese members of his family particularly by spending time in Hong Kong. The father is from Sweden and his family remains there. He would like [X] to be able to learn about his Swedish culture and know the Swedish members of his family particularly by spending time in Sweden.
The parents and the independent children’s lawyer were in agreement that, at some point, [X] should be permitted to travel overseas with each of his parents in accordance with the following proposed orders:
Each parent may take [X] out of the Commonwealth of Australia for a maximum of four weeks at a time provided that:
a.except in the case of an emergency, the travelling parent give the other parent four weeks written notice of the:
i. proposed dates of travel;
ii. the itinerary; and
iii.the address and telephone number of the premises where [X] will be staying;
b.when [X] is overseas, the parent who he is not with may telephone him three times per week and the travelling parent shall facilitate the call;
c.after [X] returns to Australia, from any trip with his mother, [X] shall have make up time with his father during the following eight weeks.
The only question was when [X] should be permitted to travel overseas with his father. The mother proposed 2016, with 2014 as a compromise. The father proposed 2012.
The independent children’s lawyer supported the father’s proposal for 2012, particularly because [X] would be in kindergarten then, and it would be less disruptive for him than during his first year of school. The independent children’s lawyer noted that [X] is blessed to have both Chinese heritage and Swedish heritage.
The mother submitted that [X] should not travel to Sweden for four weeks until he is a good deal older. She said that, in the north of Sweden, where the father’s family lives, it is daylight in summer for
24 hours a day. The mother said that [X] would not be able to sleep. She said that [X] had trouble with his digestive system when he travelled as a baby. She said the trip to Sweden is too long for [X] at this stage.
The father submitted that it was important for [X] to travel to Sweden soon, as his paternal grandmother was elderly. She travelled to Australia earlier this year and spent time with [X] here. However, the father submitted that, at her age, her health could suddenly deteriorate.
The mother sought an order that she be permitted to retain [X]’s passport. The father sought orders that:
The mother lodge [X]’s passport with the Registry Manager of the Federal Magistrates Court within seven days.
The Registry Manager release [X]’s passport to either parent upon receiving written consent from both parents.
Upon return from overseas travel, the travelling parent return [X]’s passport to the Registry Manager within seven days.
The independent children’s lawyer, as I understood it, supported the father’s proposal, on the basis that it accorded with the recommendation in the family report.
Family Report
A family report was prepared by Mr M and is dated 4 January 2011. Mr M did not interview [X] due to his very young age. However,
Mr M noted that [X]:
… presented as a delightful three year old boy who was happy and responsive, and whose physical and emotional presentation was commensurate with his chronological age.
[X] was observed to have excellent social skills and clearly enjoyed playing with the child carer as well as other children in the playroom. His capacity to speak and understand both English and Cantonese was excellent. Although Ms Yarad spoke to him frequently in Cantonese, [X] tended to respond to her in English. It seems that [X] is also familiar with some Swedish words.
Mr M observed [X] with both of his parents. Mr M considered that it was clear that [X] has a sound and loving relationship with both of his parents, but his primary relationship is clearly with his mother.
Mr M noted that:
… it is likely that both [parents] may need to travel overseas with [X] to visit family members and attend family events.
That is, Mr M seemed to accept, as both parents accept, that [X] will need to travel overseas with both of his parents. However, Mr M did not directly address the question of the age at which [X] should be permitted to travel overseas with his father.
Mr M went on to say:
… if the Court believes that there is a risk of [X] not being returned to Australia it would seem prudent to require both parents to surrender [X]’s passport whilst he is in Australia and to provide an itinerary and contact details relating to any future overseas travel [X] may take.
Contrary to Mr M’s suggestion, the surrendering of [X]’s passport while he is in Australia will not ensure his return to Australia if he leaves Australia. The reason for surrendering [X]’s passport, where it can only be returned to a parent with the consent in writing of both parents, is to ensure that proper notice is given of [X]’s travel. In the present context, “proper notice” means the amount of notice and the details to be provided of the travel.
In any event, Mr M recommended that:
Both parents surrender [X]’s passport whilst he is in Australia, and provide the other with a written copy of [X]’s itinerary containing flight numbers and dates of travel, and contact details where he will be staying.
The best interests of [X]
Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (“the Act”) deals with children. Section 60B of the Act sets out the objects and underlying principles of Part VII of the Act as follows (omitting for present purposes s.60B(3) which deals with Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders):
(1)The objects of this Part are to ensure that the best interests of children are met by:
(a)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; and
(b)protecting children from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence; and
(c)ensuring that children receive adequate and proper parenting to help them achieve their full potential; and
(d)ensuring that parents fulfil their duties, and meet their responsibilities, concerning the care, welfare and development of their children.
(2)The principles underlying these objects are that (except when it is or would be contrary to a child’s best interests):
(a)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
(b)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 (such as grandparents and other relatives); and
(c)parents jointly share duties and responsibilities concerning the care, welfare and development of their children; and
(d)parents should agree about the future parenting of their children; and
(e)children have a right to enjoy their culture (including the right to enjoy that culture with other people who share 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.
However, the best interests of the child are not the only consideration.
Section 60CC(1) of the Act relevantly provides that:
Subject to subsection (5), in determining what is in the child’s best interests, the court must consider the matters set out in subsections (2) and (3).
The matters set out in subsection (2) are primary considerations and the matters set out in subsection (3) are additional considerations. Additionally, the court must consider the matters set out in subsections (4) and (4A). I will address those considerations in order.
Section 60CC(2)(a) the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of the child’s parents
As indicated above, the family report says that [X] has a close and loving bond with each of his parents, but his principal relationship is with his mother. [X] would clearly benefit from continuing to have a close and loving relationship with each of his parents.
Section 60CC(2)(b) the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence
There was no suggestion of abuse, neglect or family violence in this case. [X] has two very loving and devoted parents.
Section 60CC(3)(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
[X] was not interviewed by Mr M and did not express any views to
Mr M on the issues now under consideration. In any event, [X] is too young for his views to be given significant weight.
Section 60CC(3)(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)
[X] has a particularly close relationship with his mother, but a solid and loving relationship with his father. [X]’s extended maternal and paternal families live overseas. He does not yet have a particularly strong relationship with them.
Section 60CC(3)(c) the willingness and ability of each of the child’s parents to facilitate, and encourage, a close and continuing relationship between the child and the other parent
Both of [X]’s parents seem to be well able and willing to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing relationship between [X] and his other parent.
Section 60CC(3)(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
It is not proposed that there be any significant change to [X]’s circumstances, except on a temporary basis for the purpose of overseas travel. Having said that, it could be expected that [X] would miss his mother, as his primary carer, if he were to be apart from her for more than five or six days, particularly at his present age.
Section 60CC(3)(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
This factor is not put forward as a relevant matter.
Section 60CC(3)(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
Both parents seem well able to provide for [X]’s needs.
Section 60CC(3)(g) the maturity, sex, lifestyle and background (including lifestyle, culture and traditions) of the child and of either of the child’s parents, and any other characteristics of the child that the court thinks are relevant
[X]’s mother is Chinese from Hong Kong. She is also a Christian who is actively involved, if not immersed, in her Church, which has views which the father describes as fundamentalist.
The father is Swedish and is also a Christian. He is a member of the Swedish Church.
Section 60CC(3)(h) if the child is an Aboriginal child or a 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;
This factor does not apply in this case.
Section 60CC(3)(i) the attitude to the child, and to the responsibilities of parenthood, demonstrated by each of the child’s parents
Both of [X]’s parents have demonstrated an admirable attitude to the responsibilities of parenthood.
Section 60CC(3)(j) any family violence involving the child or a member of the child’s family
It was not suggested that there has been any family violence in this case.
Section 60CC(3)(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
It was not suggested that there has been a family violence order in this case.
Section 60CC(3)(l) whether it 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
As discussed, if [X]’s parents are unable to agree, there will need to be further proceedings to determine the school that it would be in [X]’s best interests to attend and the amount and configuration of time that it would be in [X]’s best interests to spend with his father once [X] has started school. It is preferable that there be further proceedings to deal with those issues, rather than attempting to deal with them now, when significant matters are not presently capable of being known.
Section 60CC(3)(m) any other fact or circumstance that the court thinks is relevant
There are no other relevant facts or circumstances.
Section 60CC(4): Without limiting paragraphs (3)(c) and (i), the court must consider the extent to 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
(b)has facilitated, or failed to facilitate, the other parent:
(i)participating in making decisions about major long term issues in relation to the child; and
(ii)spending time with the child; and
(iii)communicating with the child; and
(c)has fulfilled, or failed to fulfil, the parent’s obligation to maintain the child.
These matters have been addressed previously.
Section 60CC(4A): If the child’s parents have separated, the court must, in applying subsection (4), have regard, in particular, to events that have happened, and circumstances that have existed, since the separation occurred.
The circumstances since separation have been addressed previously.
Equal shared parental responsibility
Section 61DA of the Act provides as follows:
(1)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.
(2)The presumption does not apply if there are reasonable grounds to believe that a parent of the child (or a person who lives with a parent of the child) has engaged in:
(a)abuse of the child or another child who, at the time, was a member of the parent’s family (or that other person’s family); or
(b)family violence.
(3)When the court is making an interim order, the presumption applies unless the court considers that it would not be appropriate in the circumstances for the presumption to be applied when making that order.
(4)The presumption may be rebutted by evidence that satisfies the court that it would not be in the best interests of the child for the child’s parents to have equal shared parental responsibility for the child.
The parents agree that it is in [X]’s best interests for them to have equal shared parental responsibility for [X].
Equal or substantial and significant time with each parent
Where the parents have equal joint parental responsibility for a child, s.65DAA of the Act requires the court to consider the child spending equal time, or a substantial and significant time, with each parent. That section provides as follows:
(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.
(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 child; 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;
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.
(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.
(4)Subsection (3) does not limit the other matters to which a court can have regard in determining whether the time a child spends with a parent would be substantial and significant.
(5)In determining for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2) whether it is reasonably practicable for a child to spend equal time, or substantial and significant time, with each of the child’s parents, the court must have regard to:
(a)how far apart the parents live from each other; and
(b)the parents’ current and future capacity to implement an arrangement for the child spending equal time, or substantial and significant time, with each of the parents; and
(c)the parents’ current and future capacity to communicate with each other and resolve difficulties that might arise in implementing an arrangement of that kind; and
(d)the impact that an arrangement of that kind would have on the child; and
(e)such other matters as the court considers relevant.
[X]’s parents agree that it is in his best interests at this stage to live with his mother and spend certain times with his father. This may need to be reconsidered in the future.
Overseas travel
The father recognised the value for [X] in spending time in Hong Kong with his Chinese relatives in their own environment and the value for [X] in learning about and enjoying his Chinese heritage and culture in Hong Kong. Subject to certain conditions which the mother accepted, the father was entirely willing for [X] to spend time in Hong Kong.
For the same reasons, [X] would benefit considerably from spending time with his paternal family in Sweden. He will come to know them much better if he is able to see them in their own environment. He will also see that many of their habits and customs, which may seem unusual in Australia, are the same as the habits and customs of countless Swedish people. By travelling to Sweden, [X] will be able to learn about and enjoy his own heritage, to the extent that his heritage is Swedish. It is of fundamental importance for [X] that he is able to experience and understand the part of himself that is Swedish.
Apparently healthy elderly people, such as [X]’s paternal grandmother, can suffer sudden and devastating illnesses. For that reason, it would be much better for [X] to be able to travel to Sweden while his grandmother continues to be fit and well.
I do not consider that the long daylight hours in northern Sweden during summer are a reason for [X] not to go to Sweden. I expect that, with a bit of effort, it will be possible to block out the light in any room in which [X] will be sleeping.
Nor do I consider that the trouble that [X] had with his digestive system when he travelled as a baby is a reason for him to not travel to Sweden now. It appears that the particular problem that [X] had in his infancy was entirely temporary. In any event, a digestive disturbance is a small price to pay for the overall benefit to [X] of travelling to Sweden.
I do not consider that the length of the trip to the north of Sweden is a reason for [X] not to go to Sweden. There is no reason to believe that [X] would be anything other than an intrepid traveller, like many young children. The difficulties of travel soon pass, and are more than offset by the benefits.
Having said all that, at this stage of [X]’s development, it seems to me that four weeks is a long time for [X] to be away from his primary carer. That is so even if, during that time, [X] would be with his father, with whom he has a close and loving bond, and even if [X] would be able to speak to his mother by telephone three times each week while he is away.
In all of the circumstances of this case, it seems to me that it would be in [X]’s best interests if he starts travelling to Sweden with his father in 2013 when he will be about six. I acknowledge that this will mean that [X] will be taking some time off school during his prep year, which is of course a very important and tiring year for young children. However, the father has said and I accept that he intends to travel in the Swedish summer. That would be about half way through the year, and would include the mid year holidays. I do not consider that the impact on [X] prep year would be unduly negative.
It was not argued that [X] should not be permitted to travel to Hong Kong with his mother even at his present age. Consequently, there will be orders that [X] be permitted to travel with his mother, from now onwards, on the conditions proposed by the father and with his father, from July 2013 onwards, on the conditions proposed by the father.
Passport
The mother was very upset at the prospect of being required to surrender [X]’s passport to the Registry Manager of this court. However, it appears that her concerns are based on a misapprehension.
Provided that the mother gives the father notice in accordance with the orders made today, she will be able to retrieve the passport and travel with [X] for up to four weeks at a time. Normally, each parent will be required to give the other four weeks notice. However, in the event of an emergency, the orders permit much less notice to be given. All that will be required in the event of an emergency is sufficient notice for the other parent to be satisfied that there is in fact an emergency and for the appropriate written consent to be given so that the Registry Manager can release [X]’s passport.
Obviously, if either of [X]’s parents unreasonably withholds his or her consent, [X]’s other parent can bring an urgent application to the court. It will be dealt with as urgently as the circumstances require.
It seems to me that, in all of the circumstances of this case, it is in [X]’s best interests that his passport be held by the Registry Manager. This will ensure that each parent gives proper notice to the other of any proposed travel. Both parents will be subject to the same regime. There will be orders accordingly.
I certify that the preceding fifty-nine (59) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Riley FM
Date:
0
0
1