home about people services news contact
When the children move away: Relocation
Asset Protection
Asset Protection - Family Trusts
Business Succession - Share Agreement
Service Trusts - Handle with Care
Collaborative Law
Drink Driving
Domestic Violence
Family Law Property Matters
Family Law - Stamp Duty Concessions
Migration Law in Australia
Neighbour Disputes
New Funding for Family Relationship Services
Children: Disputes Involving Children Under the Family Law Act
Out of Court Settlements
Stamp Duty Concessions
Work Choices and Termination of Employment
Disputing a Will
Super's Magic Pudding
Directors' Liabilities
Pre Nuptial Agreements
Singapore IBA meeting
When the children move away: Relocation
What is a power of attorney?
Business and Commercial Law
IBA Articles Singapore 2007
De Facto Relationships - Contracting Out of Family Law
De Facto Partners Property Disputes
De Facto Partners now entitled to Superannuation
De Facto Relationships Property Claims
Family Law - Financial Agreements
Family Law - Law Council Media Release January 2010
Focus on Better Outcomes for Families and Children
Enforcment of Family Law Court Orders
What is Shared Custody
 
 
 

When the children move away:

Relocation

When a parent moves with a child away from the other parent to another town or state or even to another country, he/she must obtain permission (leave) from the Family Court. In family law terminology, such a move is known as “relocation”. Leave is normally only required when the relocation will affect the frequency and length of visits between the child and the parent that stays behind.

In the event that leave is not obtained, the Court will normally require the parent and child that moved away to return until such time as the matter may be properly considered in a final hearing.

At the final hearing, the Court must consider a number of matters before it decides if it will grant leave to relocate. A list of other matters is found in different sections of the Family Law Act. Others are identified in reported decisions by the Full Court of the Family Court and also by the High Court. The best interest of a child is the paramount consideration in every case. However, that is not the sole consideration.

Amendments introduced to the Family Law Act in July 2006, created new important considerations for the court which are particularly relevant in relocation matters. To mention just three of these matters:

1.     One “primary” consideration is: “the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of the child's parents”;

2.     A new “legal presumption” in every case that the parents of a child will have shared parental responsibility for the child;

3.     Another new legal presumption that each parent will spend equal time with the child.

A recent decision of the Full Court, Taylor and Barker [2007], gives some guidelines about the current state of the law regarding relocation matters. In that case, the mother was granted leave to relocate with her eleven year old son away from the child’s father. The Full Court quoted with approval the judgement of Federal Magistrate Brewster as follows:

 

“(a) The best interests of the child are the paramount consideration but are not the sole consideration. In particular, rights of freedom of movement are not to be ignored.

(b) An applicant for orders permitting relocation need not show compelling reasons before such an order will be made. Indeed, neither party bears an onus; that is to say neither parent has the onus to establish that a change in current contact arrangements or a continuation of those arrangements will best promote the interests of a child.

(c) The reasons for a parent wishing to relocate with a child is only one of the matters to be considered and it should not be dealt with as a separate issue.

(d) I must identify the competing proposals and evaluate how each proposal will hold advantages and disadvantages insofar as the best interests of the child are concerned.

(e) I am to indicate which matters are of greater weight and explain how matters balance out.”

Brewster FM considered each of the different matters listed in the legislation. He concluded that: ”the child has a meaningful relationship with his father and: “… in my opinion, he will continue to have a meaningful relationship with his father even if face to face contact is confined to school holiday periods.”

The decision of Taylor and Barker [2007] gives us a glimpse of how a Court may approach a relocation case.

These matters are complex and the Court will deal with each case on its facts.
Liability limited by the Solicitors Scheme, approved under the Professional Standards Act 1994 (NSW)

When the children move away: Relocation

When the children move away:

Relocation

When a parent moves with a child away from the other parent to another town or state or even to another country, he/she must obtain permission (leave) from the Family Court. In family law terminology, such a move is known as “relocation”. Leave is normally only required when the relocation will affect the frequency and length of visits between the child and the parent that stays behind.

In the event that leave is not obtained, the Court will normally require the parent and child that moved away to return until such time as the matter may be properly considered in a final hearing.

At the final hearing, the Court must consider a number of matters before it decides if it will grant leave to relocate. A list of other matters is found in different sections of the Family Law Act. Others are identified in reported decisions by the Full Court of the Family Court and also by the High Court. The best interest of a child is the paramount consideration in every case. However, that is not the sole consideration.

Amendments introduced to the Family Law Act in July 2006, created new important considerations for the court which are particularly relevant in relocation matters. To mention just three of these matters:

1.     One “primary” consideration is: “the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of the child's parents”;

2.     A new “legal presumption” in every case that the parents of a child will have shared parental responsibility for the child;

3.     Another new legal presumption that each parent will spend equal time with the child.

A recent decision of the Full Court, Taylor and Barker [2007], gives some guidelines about the current state of the law regarding relocation matters. In that case, the mother was granted leave to relocate with her eleven year old son away from the child’s father. The Full Court quoted with approval the judgement of Federal Magistrate Brewster as follows:

 

“(a) The best interests of the child are the paramount consideration but are not the sole consideration. In particular, rights of freedom of movement are not to be ignored.

(b) An applicant for orders permitting relocation need not show compelling reasons before such an order will be made. Indeed, neither party bears an onus; that is to say neither parent has the onus to establish that a change in current contact arrangements or a continuation of those arrangements will best promote the interests of a child.

(c) The reasons for a parent wishing to relocate with a child is only one of the matters to be considered and it should not be dealt with as a separate issue.

(d) I must identify the competing proposals and evaluate how each proposal will hold advantages and disadvantages insofar as the best interests of the child are concerned.

(e) I am to indicate which matters are of greater weight and explain how matters balance out.”

Brewster FM considered each of the different matters listed in the legislation. He concluded that: ”the child has a meaningful relationship with his father and: “… in my opinion, he will continue to have a meaningful relationship with his father even if face to face contact is confined to school holiday periods.”

The decision of Taylor and Barker [2007] gives us a glimpse of how a Court may approach a relocation case.

These matters are complex and the Court will deal with each case on its facts.