FATHER SEEKS THE RETURN OF THE CHILDREN WHEN THE MOTHER RELOCATED THE CHILDREN DESPITE THE FATHER’S OPPOSITION

Randles & Leandra [2021] FCCA 1125 (10 March 2021)

This is a case where the father is seeking the return of the children to the place they were living prior to the mother relocating.  The mother proposes that the children live with her in the location of her choice.

Facts:

The mother, over the clear opposition of the father, has relocated the children from the Region C to Sydney.  The father seeks an order that the children be returned to the Region C and the mother wants the children to remain living with her in Sydney.

The mother seeks orders that the children live with her and spend time with the father, which will involve them traveling up from where the mother is living to Region C.

The mother has certainly been the children’s primary carer, but the father has always had a very significant relationship with them.

The mother is proposing that the children spend regular time with the father. True it is that it will involve a significant amount of travel for the children and the parents which can become very wearying and difficult, but nevertheless they can continue to spend alternate weekends with the father. They will not be able to spend time with him during the week but they will be able to see him regularly and on an interim basis at least should be able to maintain a meaningful relationship with him.

Issue: Should the children live with the father?

Law:

• Parenting Law Act 1975 S.60CC

Analysis:

The distance that the parties now live apart does make a difference for the children. They are only little children, and to have to do this amount of travel each alternate weekend is a big thing for them and it significantly cuts back on the amount of time they can spend with their father.

The court is without sympathy for the mother, she has usurped to herself the right to make decisions.  She has created a distance and therefore created a burden for the children in maintaining their relationship with their father and the court does not accept that it is appropriate at this stage for the children to remain living at a distance from the father.

It will be a loss for the children if they cannot live with their primary carer, but they will be returning to an area they are familiar with and returning to family members up here that they are familiar with.  They have a good relationship with a father who has been involved with them, often on a day-to-day basis, throughout their lives and the court is satisfied that when the two alternatives are weighed up, that is the preferable option.

True it is that it will then result, if the mother remains where she is, in the children having to travel to spend time with her but there is no perfect outcome in the matter.

Conclusion: The court orders that children X and Y shall live with the Father.

#parenting