FATHER SEEKS TO RELOCATE THE MOTHER AND THE CHILDREN AND EVEN OFFERS A PROPERTY WHERE THEY CAN SETTLE, MOTHER REFUSES
Sturm & Orlando [2021] FCCA 623 (1 April 2021))
This is a parenting application where the father is seeking that mother be ordered to return to Suburb C and live in a home he will pay for until the youngest child turns 18.
Facts:
The applicant father seeks that the children and their mother relocate from B City, where they presently live, to a house in Suburb C, which he proposes to provide for them until the children are 18. He seeks that time spent by the children should progressively increase with him as recommended by the family report writer, Ms D.
The respondent mother seeks to remain in B City and seeks time as sought by the independent children’s lawyer. Clearly, if she remains in B City, the children’s time with their father will be substantially less. The independent children’s lawyer submits that the mother should be permitted to remain in B City, noting that the father may, in fact, relocate there himself. If the father does not relocate, the independent children’s lawyer recommends alternate weekends and a gradual progression of time.
The mother is the primary carer and lives in B City. The children are at school in B City. The mother is connected to B City and her father has bought a home there. The mother had education in B City and plans through her education to escape her impecuniosity. The mother would receive a cold reception in Suburb C, from the father’s family.
The father was offering assistance and was prepared to pay for a property in Suburb C if the mother signed the child support agreement. The father has a home in mind which would be available for a long time. There are family supports in Suburb C. Relocation will improve the father’s time with the children. They would have daily living with the father. The children are distressed at not seeking the father. The mother will relocate to Suburb C or somewhere nearby if relocation is ordered.
Issue: Should the court grant the relief sought by the father to relocate his children to Suburb C?
Law:
Analysis:
The short answer is no. She has lived in B City for the better part of a year and a-half and the children, three of whom go the same school and will do so for some years, have been in school there for a complete academic year, and by the time that these reasons for judgment, another term, as well.
It is utterly unrealistic to require the mother to return to Suburb C, where, in any event, she would unquestionably feel controlled by the husband. His proposal that she live in a property paid for by him speaks for itself. In the end, it needs to be borne in mind that there is no onus upon a person to relocate.
The children should continue to live with the mother and the mother lives in B City. Plainly, she has studies there which are likely in the longer term to be greatly to her benefit, assuming all goes well. It is simply unrealistic to order her to return to Suburb C.
Conclusion: Court denies the application of the father to relocate the mother and children.