Cameron McKenzie Relocation matters are always difficult and turn on the best interests of the child(ren) when considering the competing proposals. Irrespective of the delinquent party failing to abide by orders and unilaterally relocating or simply relocating in absence of orders, these matters are almost always decided in favour of the primary carer unless the wishes of the child(ren) prevail. This is basic premise of Bondelmonte.
Without reading the decision it appears colourful to assume just because the father sought orders in the initially that the children live with the mother affirms that the mother is the better care provider, especially when the father was ultimately seeking an equal care arrangement. This raises the risk of both parties seeking to be the primary carer which may ultimately result in the court concluding that co-parenting is impossible and the court consequently making a non contact order against one parent. As opposed to a less adversarial approach and working towards transitioning into becoming an equal care provider and perhaps the primary care provider, particularly if the issue of a parent’s mental health (support by expert opinion) poses an unacceptable risk or affects their capacity to parent.
The concern is that cases like these incentivise parties to achieve tactical advantage by unilaterally relocating. This also applies to protection orders made without merit or being used to displace parenting orders. Personally the party seeking to relocate should not be allowed to relocate without the permission of the court.
The father now has the additional burden of travelling to Brisbane to attend to the matter and find new representation and also bear the costs associated with the new representation re-familiarising with the matter.