UNEMPLOYED MOTHER WANTS TO RELOCATE WITH HER CHILD TO PERTH
Naparus & Frankham (No.7) [2020] FCCA 3139 (26 November 2020)
This case involves the mother-applicant asking for the court’s permission to relocate from Victoria to reside with her child in Perth.
Facts:
The applicant-mother’s primary position was that she be permitted to relocate X, who is five years old, from Victoria to reside with her in Perth.
The mother contends that she has been X's primary parent with the implication that X would not cope with being removed from her primary care. The mother says that her own support network and in particular, her mother and her sister reside in Perth and that she has no relationships, friendships or support, in Victoria.
The mother submits that relocation for X with her to Perth will allow the mother to pursue employment and hence provide financial support for X where the father is unemployed and offers only the statutory minimum of child support.
The father says that should X relocate with the mother to Perth then a combination of the mother's attitude, financial constraints and logistical difficulties will not permit the maintaining of a relationship between X and her father and in circumstances where that relationship between the five year old child and the parent needs proximity and frequency in order to properly flourish.
The father submits that he can offer a supportive and protective home for X and is prepared to ensure the proper supervision and protection of his daughter.
Neither party is currently in employment and there are issues of logistics and expenses for the child moving between the parents and compounded by the mother's preference to live in Western Australia.
Issue: Should the Court allow the relocation of the mother and X to Perth?
Law:
- Family Law Act 1975 SS.60B, 60CA,60CC(2),(3),61DA
Analysis:
Orders which can accommodate the strongest possibility of X maintaining a relationship and developing a meaningful relationship with both her parents is to the forefront of such consideration. The court cannot be satisfied that such a relationship for X will occur or continue should the child live in Perth. Secondly, there is a real difficulty in rationalising X's best interests with a change of primary care from the mother to the father where this young five year old has always lived with the mother and where, except for some discrete issues, the mother is an adequate and capable parent. Consequently, the best and perhaps only opportunity for X to maintain a relationship with both of her parents is for X to live with the mother but to remain in Victoria.
Should X live with her mother in Perth then the evidence is that the parents’ finances, the logistical hurdles and the mother’s attitude generally to parenting as-of-right, and negativity toward the father, combine to leave strong doubts as to any consistent face-to-face relationship between X and her father.
The court is persuaded that the child’s interests are best attended by X living primarily with the mother but to do so in Victoria. The father’s time with X will by geographical necessity be limited to weekends and school holidays where the parents should share equally in the costs and efforts of travel.
Conclusion: Court orders that X lives with the mother provided that the mother live in the City B municipality or such other place in Victoria not further than the distance between the father’s current home in Town F and City B.
