Arbitration as an Alternative in Family Law
Recently, we have had a number of cases where parties have good prospects to appeal, but a decision has been
Call us on
Relocation cases are difficult. There are no two ways about it. Often, it is all or nothing. One parent wants to move interstate or overseas with the child and the other parent wants the child to stay nearby to them.
A 2017 Full Court decision highlights the ongoing uncertainty with these cases and the wide discretion that is with a Trial Judge in determining whether a child should relocate or not.
In the recent Full Court decision of Morrall & Olmos (12 January 2017). The mother was successful in relocating to Germany with the child, despite her previous conduct and despite recommendations by the family report writer.
The Trial Judge allowed the mother to relocate to Germany. The mother was successful in her Application before a Trial Judge to be permitted for her daughter to relocate with her to Germany to reside permanently. The father Appealed and the Appeal was unsuccessful.
The background to this matter is that the mother is a German national and permanent resident of Australia and immigrated to Australia in 2002. The father is an Australian Citizen and immigrated from his country of birth (not Germany) to Australia in 2009.
The mother and father commenced cohabitation in Brisbane in November 2009 and were married in December 2009. The child was born in 2010 and was 6 years of age at the time of the Appeal.
In November 2011 the mother and child went to Germany by agreement for a holiday. The father joined them in December 2011 and as planned he returned to Australia on 4 January 2012. The mother and child were due to return with him but as agreed they would extend their stay and return to Australian on 14 February 2012.
The mother did not return with the child and eventually the father commenced proceedings pursuant to the Hague Convention to secure the child’s return. The mother (unaware of the father’s Application) decided that she would resume her relationship with the father and on 31 July 2012 returned to Australia, with the child.
The parties then moved from Brisbane to Canberra but separated soon after in November 2012. The father returned to Brisbane whilst the mother stayed in Canberra. After proceedings were filed the father relocated to Canberra in March 2013. Parenting proceedings were concluded in 2014 with Orders providing for the child to live with the mother and spend time with the father four (4) nights per fortnight and the mother not pursuing her Application to relocate.
In February 2015 the mother was diagnosed with a major depressive disorder and the mother’s employment contract shortly thereafter concluded.
The mother reinstituted parenting proceedings in November 2015 and sought that the Orders of July 2014 be set aside and that she have sole parental responsibility for child and be permitted to relocate to Germany. The important principals to emerge from this case include the following: –
The problem for practitioners of course, is advising clients in this area of relocation, where often substantial weight is placed every day by many Judges upon the recommendations and findings of family consultations and other independent health experts relied upon by Judges.
It is easy to say that the recommendations are not binding, but decisions such as this case fly in the face of many decisions made on a day to day basis, where recommendations are followed strictly by Judges from simple parenting cases to the most complex. The breadth of the discretion said to apply would seem to be approaching a limit so wide as to make such cases a lottery.
In conclusion, it is my opinion that there can be no doubt that the decision in this case, is both alarming and concerning to practitioners. It highlights the highly discretionary nature in parenting matters and the problems with ever being successful in Appeals despite the fact that an Appeal Court would have probably made Orders different, or in terms of recommendations of a Court expert.
It is suggested, that the best method to reduce uncertainty and risk, is not to toss a coin, but to be extra diligent in preparing a client’s case and be detailed and particular in relation to the presentation of evidence on behalf of one’s client.
A well prepared and presented relocation case will still have a greater chance of success than a poorly presented one. The element of discretion however is still substantial and setting realistic expectations for clients as to outcomes and encouraging alternative solutions outside of litigation, become even more imperative when the discretion is so wide.
In the recent Full Court decision of Morrall & Olmos (12 January 2017). The mother was successful in relocating to Germany with the child, despite her previous conduct and despite recommendations by the family report writer.
The Trial Judge allowed the mother to relocate to Germany. The mother was successful in her Application before a Trial Judge to be permitted for her daughter to relocate with her to Germany to reside permanently. The father Appealed and the Appeal was unsuccessful.
Recently, we have had a number of cases where parties have good prospects to appeal, but a decision has been
Recently, we have had a number of cases where parties have good prospects to appeal, but a decision has been
Recently, we have had a number of cases where parties have good prospects to appeal, but a decision has been
© 2024 Hartley Family Law – All Rights Reserved | Privacy | Terms & Conditions
The Privacy Statement of the Company is incorporated into these Terms and Conditions. The Company respects the privacy of all its customers and business contacts. The Company is subject to the requirements of the National Privacy Principles which are contained in the Privacy Act.
1. How is personal information collected?
Your name, email address and phone number are collected on the contact form to allow the Company to contact you.
If you email or phone the Company directly, then the Company may record your personal details.
Your personal information may be used to:
a) Improve service to you, the customer
b) The Company may use personal information about you for marketing and research purposes. If you do not wish this to occur, please contact us and we will ensure this does not occur
c) Your personal information is not disclosed to any organisation outside of the Company.
2. Will personal information be given to anyone else?
The Company does not sell or provide your personal information to any other company.
3. Security of personal information
The Company employees are required, as a condition of their employment, to treat personal information held by the Company as confidential, and to maintain the confidentiality of that personal information.
The Company protects the personal information it collects in a secure database.
4. Access and correction
You can access your data at any time by contacting the Company directly.
You also have the right to ask us to correct information about you which is inaccurate, incomplete or out of date.
We ask you to contact the Company by email or phone using the Company contact details if you wish to access or correct any of your personal details.
5. Online privacy issues
To the extent that this Privacy Policy applies to online privacy issues, it is to be read as forming part of the terms of use for our website. When you deal with the Company whether online or otherwise, the Company takes its privacy obligations seriously.
6. Additional privacy information and how to contact the Company
The Company may change its Privacy Policy at any time.
For further information about privacy issues and the protection of privacy visit the Australian Federal Privacy Commissioner’s website at www.privacy.gov.au. If you feel that The Company is not complying with this Privacy Policy, or if you have other privacy concerns, please contact the company.