·   ·  757 posts
  •  ·  4655 friends

Mother Seeks Relocation Orders with the Child

Caldwell & Prentiss [2022] FedCFamC2F 1545 (11 November 2022)

The mother seeks to relocate with the child a half hour drive from the father’s location.  The father opposes the relocation and seeks to implement an equal time arrangement.  The Court, in resolving this dispute, considered the best interests of the child.

Facts

These proceedings concern the future parenting of a young girl, X (“X”), born in 2017 who is presently four (4) years and eleven (11) months old.  X’s parents are Mr Caldwell (“the Father”) and Ms Prentiss (“the Mother”).  Their relationship was brief and they separated soon after X was born.  The Mother has always been X’s primary carer and – broadly – the Father (and his family) have enjoyed regular and age-appropriate time with her.  X spends 4 nights per fortnight with him, being from 3pm Thursday until 9am on the following Monday in alternate weeks.

The Father lives at Town C with his fiancé Ms G. Each of them work at the nearby Employer H where the Father is a tradesman and Ms G is the manager.  Ms G has 2 daughters, J (born in 2014) and K (born in 2019), who live with them for 8 nights per fortnight including alternate weekends.  Ms G is pregnant to the Father, with their child expected to be born in 2023.  The paternal family also live close by and X has developed close and loving relationships with them, most notably with the paternal grandmother who has spent substantial time with her throughout her life.

The Mother lives with the maternal grandfather in his home at Town L in the Region D region, not far from Town C.  She too has re-partnered.  Her partner, Mr M, lives in Town B where he owns his own home and is employed as a labourer at a nearby employer.  When the Mother travels to Town B, she makes 4 separate toilet/rest stops along the way.  Mr M also has travel issues, as he works a 28-day roster consisting of 7 dayshifts (7am to 7pm), followed by 7 days off, then 7 night shifts (7pm to 7am) and 7 days off.

Despite the geographical challenges, their relationship has thrived and they have gone on to have a child together, N, who was born in 2022.  As a result of their current circumstances, the Mother is largely having to parent her alone. Moreover, N is now another passenger when the Mother travels to Town B.  The Mother wants to relocate with X to Town B; the Father opposes the relocation and seeks to implement an equal time arrangement.  

Issue

Whether or not the Mother should be allowed to relocate with the child.

Applicable law

Adamson & Adamson [2014] FamCAFC 232(2014) FLC 93-622 - the Full Court observed that the right of parents to live and work where they choose should only defer to the paramount consideration of a child's best interests where those interests would be so adversely affected as to justify such interference.

Godfrey & Sanders [2007] FamCA 102 - provides that the legislation requires that there be a primary consideration given to the benefit of the child having a meaningful relationship with both of the child’s parents but does not purport to describe how that meaningful relationship is best promoted in the circumstances of any one case.
 
Mazorski v Albright [2007] FamCA 520(2007) 37 Fam LR 518 - provides that the “meaningful” relationship between parent and child which is referred to in s 60CC(2)(a) refers to a relationship which is important, significant and valuable to the child. 

Analysis

The Father seemed very much focussed on what she had done “wrong” rather than what she had done “right”.  Notwithstanding his close and loving relationship with X, the Father was unsatisfied with the Mother’s attitude and saw himself as a victim.  The Father does not trust the Mother.  He accused her of altering the content of some text messages which the Mother had annexed to her affidavit.  Despite the seriousness of this allegation, he offered no evidence in support.

Some concern was the Father’s near complete lack of empathy for the Mother’s circumstances.  This was exemplified by his oral evidence that, insofar as living in Town L and Town B were concerned, he “couldn’t see any real difference for the Mother”.  The Mother was a straightforward and honest witness.  She had empathy for the Father’s circumstances in the event that she was able to relocate. 

She appeared appropriately mindful of the potential adverse impacts on X of her being geographically separated from her Father and from the paternal family.  Her parenting proposals appeared to be reasonably thought out and her concession that she would remain in Region D if she could not relocate was both genuine and reluctant.

Conclusion

All previous orders are discharged.  The parents have equal shared parental responsibility for the child X born in 2017 (“the child”).  The child shall live with the Mother.  The Mother shall be at liberty to relocate the child’s residence to Town B NSW.

Attachments
Comments (0)
Login or Join to comment.

FLAST

Close