Relocation order sought by Father that Mother and children move from Queensland where they have been living for 12 months to New South Wales

Relocation order sought by Father that Mother and children move from Queensland where they have been living for 12 months to New South Wales

Relocation 

25. On any view of the evidence the fact is that the father has had virtually no relationship with Y and his relationship with X has been significantly strained due to the distance between he and the child post separation.
26. The father himself created some distance by moving to the (omitted) in February 2016, shortly after separation.
27. The mother has added to that distance by relocation to Queensland.

54. In assessing the evidence at this interim stage, I am satisfied that it is more probable than not that the mother and the children have been living in Queensland since relocation in June 2016.
55. These are interim proceedings. It is clearly the mother’s intention that she continue to reside in Queensland since her relocation. That will no doubt be her application on a final basis.
56. If I caused the children to be returned to New South Wales this will cause a disruption to their life. A life that on my findings has been settled for approximately 12 months in Queensland following relocation. This has the potential to be disadvantageous to the children.
57. Of course a move to New South Wales might place them closer to their father. The disadvantage of the move must be weighed against any advantage to be gained in having a meaningful relationship with the father.
58. It is not the father’s application that the children should reside with him in the (omitted) area. It is his application that the children reside with the mother in the (omitted) area.
59. I would therefore need to make a coercive order as to where the mother was to live.
60. In Oswald & Karrington^[5] the Full Court said that the court’s power to make a coercive order should be exercised only in rare and extreme circumstances.
61. The Full Court in Sampson & Hartnett ^[6] said that there is an imperative for the court to explore and consider alternative to restricting freedom of movement particularly when the coercive order will require a party to relocate contrary to that party’s proposal, and involve a primary care giver undertaking that role in a place not of that parents choosing.
62. There is no evidence before me to suggest that the father does not have freedom of movement. That is, the father does not say he cannot afford to travel to Queensland nor does he say that work commitments prevent him from travelling to Queensland.
63. He will need to establish a relationship with Y and reconnect with X. This will require shorter visits and perhaps more frequent visits however I am not persuaded that based on the evidence currently before me that the father cannot or would not travel to Queensland for the benefit of his children.
64. Furthermore, I am not persuaded that there are rare or extreme factors that warrant me exercising my discretion to make a coercive order. There has been too much water under the bridge. These children and their mother have resided in Queensland for approximately 12 months.
65. In those circumstances, weighing the two competing proposals with regards to the disadvantages to the children, I am satisfied that it would be more disadvantageous to remove them from Queensland at this time.

Family Lawyers Sunshine Coast

Family Law Sunshine Coast

Sunshine Coast Family Lawyers

Sunshine Coast Family Law

Best family lawyers