FATHER WANTS HIS CHILDREN TO STAY WITH HIM IN MELBOURNE WHILE THE MOTHER WANTS THE CHILDREN WITH HER IN BRISBANE
Zelkin & Debner [2020] FCCA 2982 (12 November 2020)
This case involves the father seeking that the children stay with him in Melbourne while the mother seeks to relocate the children to Brisbane.
Facts:
These are parenting proceedings in respect of the parties’ two children being, X born in 2011 and Y born in 2013. Each parent seeks orders giving them primary care of X and Y where the mother lives in Brisbane and the father lives in Melbourne.
The mother claims that the father has a history of alcohol and opioid abuse and addiction. She also claims to be the victim of family violence primarily in the sense of verbal abuse and financial control. The father claims that the mother is also controlling in her behaviour and was verbally and emotionally abusive. There has been an interim intervention order in favour of the father and the two children.
Issue: Should the children stay with the father or relocate with the mother?
Law:
- Family Law Act 1975 60B, 60CA, 60CC(2), (3)
Analysis:
The father is settled in Melbourne. His relationship with his current wife (Ms. E) appears stable and is of some benefit to the children albeit the court harbours concerns as to patent animosity between the mother and the current Ms E which, if to persist, will ultimately be contrary to the children's best interests.
The children have habitually lived in Melbourne save and except for the relatively short period that they were unilaterally removed by their mother to Queensland. They attend school. The father has attended to any relevant emotional or psychological needs presented by the children and is understanding of and sympathetic to those needs. The father and his partner are both employed and can provide adequately for the financial support of the children.
The mother remains unemployed and the court also has little or no evidence as to her potential for employment and hence financial support of the children. The evidence that the court has suggests that her current financial situation is unhealthy if not precarious. She gave evidence that she had required financial assistance from family members for travel between Melbourne and Brisbane.
The court is of view that the best interests of X and Y are served by them remaining living primarily with their father in Melbourne. This will provide them with stability. The court is satisfied as to the father's capacity to care for them.
Conclusion: Court orders that X and Y live with the father.
