The Child Who Stood Her Ground: When a 14-Year-Old’s Voice Reshaped a Family Court Decision

📝 Introduction

In Andalis & Andalis (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1F 137, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia grappled with the persistent refusal of a 14-year-old child, Y, to return to her mother's care following court-ordered relocation. Originally ordered to live with her mother and siblings, Y’s strong and consistent desire to live with her father — and her eventual physical refusal to return — triggered reconsideration of the final orders. This case illustrates the evolving balance between parental rights, the integrity of court orders, and a mature child’s autonomy and psychological welfare.

📚 Facts and Issues

Facts:

• The initial 2023 orders mandated that all four children live with the mother in Town D, despite Y’s known preference for the father.
• After a visit in July 2023, Y barricaded herself in her father's home, refusing to return to the mother.
• The father informed authorities but did not forcibly remove Y.
• Y's stated reasons for her stance included feeling emotionally harmed by the mother’s abrupt relocation and long-standing feelings of being estranged from the father due to the mother’s actions.
• The mother believed Y was being manipulated and resisted recognizing the child's autonomy.
• A Child Impact Report (CIR) confirmed Y’s strong views and the risks of forcing her relocation.

Issues:

1. Should the original orders be varied to allow Y to live with her father?
2. Was Y’s view genuinely her own, or a product of undue influence by the father?
3. What was in the best interests of the child under Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)?

⚖️ Application of Law

Governing Legislation:

• Family Law Act 1975 (Cth): s 60CA (best interests of the child), s 60CC (additional considerations), s 65AA (making of parenting orders), s 117 (costs).
• The primary considerations under s 60CC(2):
• The benefit to the child of a meaningful relationship with both parents.
• The need to protect the child from psychological harm.

Key Case Law:

• Rice & Asplund (1978) 6 Fam LR 570: Material change in circumstances is required before altering final parenting orders.
• Andalis & Andalis [2023] FedCFamC1F 597: The original 2023 ruling emphasized sibling bonds and maternal support network over Y’s stated preferences, predicting non-compliance.

Application:

The Court accepted that the “threshold in Rice and Asplund” had been met due to Y’s resolute and persistent refusal to comply with the relocation order

. Justice Smith examined Y’s maturity, the consistent nature of her wishes, and the genuine psychological risks posed by enforcing the prior order — including the potential for absconding and mental health deterioration.

The evidence, including the CIR and GP report, demonstrated:

• Y’s relationship with the mother had deteriorated.
• She feared permanent retention if returned.
• Her view was not solely the result of paternal influence
• .

Ultimately, the risk of psychological harm from forced relocation outweighed the benefit of co-residence with her siblings. The judgment noted that the mother’s own inability to emotionally connect with Y or validate her feelings exacerbated the conflict and impaired her parental capacity.

🧑‍⚖️ Judgment Analysis and Reasoning

Justice Smith varied the final parenting orders to allow Y to live with her father and for him to have sole parental responsibility, subject to a duty to inform and consult the mother in non-urgent matters. This order reflected:

• Y’s age (14), maturity, and firm preference (paras [128], [148]).
• A real risk of psychological harm and potential for absconding if forced to return (paras [82], [130]).
• The mother’s limited insight into Y’s emotional needs and inability to accept her autonomy (paras [63], [74]).
• The father's compliance with court expectations and support for Y’s relationship with her mother (paras [117], [118]).

The Court was persuaded by the Independent Children’s Lawyer’s proposal, noting it provided a clear structure for time with both parents and aligned with Y’s needs and views (paras [103]–[113]).

Significantly, the Court found that the ongoing high conflict between the parents and the strained maternal relationship placed Y at higher risk of harm if relocated, making the order to live with the father the “least harmful alternative” (paras [136]–[138]).

📌 Take-Home Lesson

This case underscores that a child’s voice matters — especially when mature and consistently expressed. Courts are willing to modify final orders where a child’s welfare, autonomy, and psychological well-being are at risk, even when that child defies a prior ruling. The best interests of the child remain paramount, but so too does the recognition that rigid adherence to orders can sometimes exacerbate harm rather than prevent it.

Legal practitioners and parents alike must appreciate that co-parenting failures, high-conflict dynamics, and failure to validate a child’s emotional experience can seriously undermine a parent’s case — even if they were previously the primary carer.