PREPARING A SUCCESSFUL
RELOCATION CASE
Author:
Emma Swart
Date:
7 April, 2016
© Copyright 2016
This work is copyright. Apart from any permitted use under the Copyright Act 1968,
no part may be reproduced or copied in any form without the permission of the
Author.
Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to
the author c/- [email protected] or T 613-9225 6387.
PreparingaSuccessfulRelocationCase
EmmaSwart,Foley’sList,VictorianBar
Foley’sListFamilyLawBreakfastPerth7April2016
Relocationcases,whereoneparentseekstomoveachildawayfromtheother
parent,arejustparentingcasesdecidedonthesamebasisasotherparenting
casesandtherearenospecialrulesaboutthesecases1.Theyarehowever
notoriouslydifficultcasestoprepareandrunandverydifficulttosettle.The
stakesarehighforeachparentasoneadult’sfreedomofmovementmayendup
beingrestrictedbythecourtinthebestinterestsofthechildrenortheother
adult’srelationshipwithhisorherchildrenmaybesubstantiallychangedbythe
childrenmovingaway.Whateverhappenstherecouldbesignificantfinancial
impactoneitherorbothparentsifamoveforthechildrenisallowedorifamove
isprevented.Addtothatthecostsoflitigationandthestakesarehigh.In
relocationcasesitisparticularlyimportanttotakeastepbackearlyinthe
preparationprocessandidentifywaystopresentyourclient’sstorytothecourt.
Solicitorsdraftingaffidavitsinfamilylawmattersareaccustomedtotheideaof
presentingaclient’sstorytothecourt.Alittlebackgroundinformationabouta
clientinanaffidavitcanhelppersonaliseacaseandsetthescene.Inrelocation
caseshowever,weneedtogoastepfurtherintostrategicstorytelling.
Amostmemorableexampleofstrategicstorytellinginlawwasinacontractand
equitycaseIcameacrossyearsago.TheHighCourtdeliveredit’sdecisionin
LouthvDiprose[1992]HCA61on2December1992.Atthattime,Iwasworking
hereinPerthasthePrincipal(meaningonly)SolicitorofthefledgingConsumer
CreditLegalService(WA).Thefacts,andthedecision,tookmebysurprise.Mr
Diprosewasasolicitor.HewasinlovewithMsDiprosewhowasinterestedin
pursuingarelationshipwithhimbutmaintainedaformoffriendshipwithhim
wherebyheboughtherthingsandpaidherbills(includingschoolfeesforher
1BandB:FamilyLawReformAct1995(1997)FLC92‐755at194.
2
children)andshegavehimhercompanyfromtimetotimebutnoon‐going
‘benefits’.Withwhatappearedtobelotsoftimetoconsiderhisactions,he
boughtthehouseshewaslivinginfromherbrother‐in‐lawandgaveittoher.
Shestartedseeingsomeoneelse.TheSouthAustralianSupremeCourtordered
hertotransferthehousebacktohim.
Sheappealed.Shelost2‐1intheSAFullCourt(buttheydidchangetheorders
forhertopayhimasumratherthantransferthehouse).Shegotspecialleaveto
appealtotheHighCourt.TheHighCourtdismissedtheappeal6‐1(Justice
Tooheydissenting),revertingtotheordertotransferthehousebacktoMr
Diprose.ThefindingwasthatMsLouthhadcreatedsuchanairofcrisisabout
herinsecurefinancialsituationthatshetookunconscientiousadvantageofMr
Diprosewhowasinapositionofspecialdisadvantagebyreasonofhis
unrequitedloveforher.(Theunrequitedlovewasevidencedbyavolumeof91
poemswrittenduringoneoftheperiodssherefusedtotalktohim).IntheHigh
Court,JusticeTooheywasnotsatisfiedthattheemotionalinvolvementMr
DiprosehadwithMsLouthputhiminalegalsituationofspecialdisadvantage
sufficientfortheCourttosetasidethegiftofthehouse.
Acuriouscase.
Itbecameevenmoreinterestingtome(andinstructiveforourpurposes)whenI
cameacrossanacademicarticleacoupleofyearslaterbyLisaSarmas.Sarmas,
Lisa,“Storytellingandthelaw:acasestudyofLouthvDiprose”,Melbourne
UniversityLawReview,Vol.19,No.3,June1994:701‐728.MsSarmasanalysed
thecaseateachofitsstagesanddrewoutthedifferingstorylinesinthecase–
damnedwhores2,romanticfools,damselsindistressandkindlygentlemen.3
LouisDiproseistheromanticfoolandMaryLouththe‘damnedwhore’who
trickedhimoutofhishouseandtookadvantageofhislove.Fortheminority
judges,MaryLouthisthedamselindistressassistedbythekindlygentlemen
2SarmastakesthistermfromAnneSummer’sbookDamnedWhoresandGod'sPolice:the
ColonisationofWomeninAustralia(1975)
3Sarmas1994at718
3
LouisDiprose,whoafterallwasasolicitorandknewwhathewasdoingwhenhe
gaveherthehouse.
Thestrongfeministanalysisofthecaseprompteddebateandaninteresting
articleinreplybyJusticePeterHeereyin“TruthLiesandStereotypes;Storiesof
MaryandLouis”,(1996)NewcLRVol1No3,pp1‐31wherehepointsoutthat
judgesareconstrainedbythefactspresentedtothemandneedtofocusonthe
partiesbeforethemratherthanusecasestopromotetheinterestsof
marginilisedgroups.HealsonotesthatiftheSAChiefJusticehadsatonthe
appealratherthanasthetrialjudgeandtheminorityjudgeonappealMathesonJ
hadtakenhisplaceasthetrialjudge,theresultmaywellhavebeendifferent.
Sheerluck,hesays,isperhapsnotgivensufficientweightinjurisprudential
analysis.4
Aswewellknowinfamilylaw,discretionaryjudgmentsaredifficulttooverturn
onappeal.Sowecomebacktothequestion–howdowewin,notlosecases,in
thefirstplace.Whichstoriesresonatewithtrialjudges?
TheCourtcontinuallyremindsus(anditself)thataparentwhowishestomove
doesnotneedtohaveacompellingreasontodoso.5However,Ican’trecalla
singlesuccessfulrelocationcasewheretherewasn’tagoodreasonputforward
forthemove.Ifyouaregoingtohaveachanceatwinning,focusonthereasons
forthemoveandarticulatethemclearly.
InthepaperbySerinaThomsonandmyself“RelocationCasesintheFamily
CourtofWesternAustraliaJune2013‐March2015”6,ourreviewofreported
andunreportedcasesforthatperiodidentifiedthesereasonsforwantingto
relocate‐

Financiallyadvantageous(suchashigherpaidemployment)
Professionallyadvantageous
4HeereyJ(1996)at31
5AvA:RelocationApproach(2000)FLC¶93‐035;MorganandMiles(2007)FLC93‐343

6http://www.foleys.com.au/resources/Relocation%20cases%20in%20the%20Family%20Court
%20of%20Western%20Australia_Swart%20&%20Thomson_30May2015.pdf
4

Academicallyadvantageous

Familysupport

Spouseemployment

Spouselocation

“Homesick”(wantingtoreturn“home”duetobeingunabletosettlein
Perth)

Cultural

Religious

Mentalhealth
InPlastowandSaville[2013]FCWA105atpara80WaltersJstated“abetterway
ofdescribingorcontextualisingaparent's"freedomofmovement"istoregard
theconceptasfallingwithinthatparent's"legitimateinterestsanddesires"
whichshouldnotbeignoredintheconsiderationoffactorsinthecase(and
ultimatelythewifewaspermittedtomovethechildrenbacktotheUK.)Her
reasonforrelocationwasquitesimpleandherstorywelltold.Shehadagreedto
movefromtheUK6yearsorsoearlierwiththehusbandwhenitwasnother
preference,shehadalwaysbeenhomesickbutnotsuchthathermentalhealth
wascompromisedandafterseparation,shewantedtogoback.Shewas
presentedasacapablewoman,shewasexpectedtocopeifunabletomoveback
totheUK.Afterbalancingeachofthefactorsandfindinginfavourofthe‘UK
proposal,hisHonourstatedat272–
“Becausethewifeistobethechildren'sunchallengedprimarycaregiver,itisnot
possibletostrictlyseparatethechildren'sbestinterests‐assomeformof
abstractconceptfromthewife'scircumstances,andherlegitimateinterestsand
desires.Thelawdoesnotsuggestthatsuchaseparationcanbeachieved,asthe
passagefromthejudgmentofKirbyJinAMSvAIFthatIhave(twice)citedabove
makesclear.Thewife'shappinessandemotionalhealthareclearlyimportant
considerations.”
Imakeaparticularnoteof“thewife’shappiness”asIthinkthattherehasbeena
trendoverthepastfewyearsofthinkingthatthestorywhichneededtobetold
5
inordertorelocatewasthattherewouldbeasevereimpactonthewife’smental
health(beingtheparentwhomostcommonlyseekstorelocate)7.
Happinessoftheprimarycareparentnowappearstobeawinningstoryline.
IntherecentappealofBlanding&Blanding[2016]FamCAFC21(24February
2016),thetrialjudgehadpermittedthemothertomovethe3childrenfrom
SydneytotheCentralCoastofNSWandthefatherwasnotsuccessfulin
reversingthatdecisiononappeal.
Therewere3childrenbornin2003,2006and2008.Thepartiesseparatedin
mid2012whenthechildrenwere9,6and4.Thepartieswerelivingintheeast
andsouth‐easternpartofSydney.Themotherformedanewrelationshipin
September2012withapartnerwholivedontheCentralCoastnorthofSydney.
Themotherhadbeentheprimarycarer.Thefatherissuedforequaltimeorders
in2013andthemotherrespondedwitharequesttorelocate.Thefather’stime
hadprogressedin2014toalternateweekendsfromFridaytoMonday.Withthe
move,FridaytoMondaywouldbeimpossible.Themotherproposedshewould
bringthechildrentoSydneyoneweekendamonthandthatthefathercould
spendtheotheralternateweekendamonthintheCentralCoastareawiththe
children.
Thefatherhadsufferedfrombi‐polarandbeenanalcoholicbuthadsought
treatmentandwasabletoplayasignificantroleinthechildren’slivesandattend
theirextracurricularactivitiesforthepast3years.Theparentsrelationshipwas
hostile.
ThetrialproceededonMonday19and20January2015andhisHonourgave
judgmentthatFriday.Theorderswerestayedpendingtheappealandthe
motherandchildrenremainedintheSydneyarea.
7MothersweretheApplicanttorelocateinover90%ofthe38relocationcasesbeforethe
FamilyCourtofWAfromJuly2014toOctober2015andweresuccessfulin66%ofcases.Iam
gratefultoElizabethWarrofFCWAforsharingherresearch.
6
JudgeBrewsterhadlisted10factorsabouttheproposedmovesetoutinthe
judgmentofFinnJatpp4‐5–

“thereducedtimewhichthechildrenwouldspendwiththefather;

thetravelandaccommodationcostsinvolvedforthefatherinspending
timewiththechildrenontheCentralCoast;

thefactthatinSydneythechildrenwouldspendtimewiththefather“ina
normaldomesticsituation”whilesuchtimeontheCentralCoastwould
havetobespentinrentedaccommodation;

thefather’sabilitytobeinvolvedinthechildren’sschoolingandsporting
activitieswouldbe“gravelydiminished”iftheymovedfromSydney;

therewouldbe“agreaterthenhithertoseparation”fromtheirextended
familyifthechildrenmovedfromSydney;

thechildrenwouldhavetochangeschools;

thechildren’sfriendsareintheSydneyareaandtheywillseemuchless
ofthemiftheymove;

thechildren’sviewsasexpressedtoDrR,whohadpreparedafamily
report(withsuchviewsbeinglargelyunsupportiveofthemove);

thechildrenwouldbemovinginto“anuntestedarrangement”should
theysharearesidencewithMrW;andtherewouldbethreetofourhours
travelinvolvedbetweenSydneyandtheCentralCoast.
10.Havingidentifiedthesetenmatters,hisHonourthensaidthattherewere
“essentiallyonlytworeasons”whyhehaddecidedthatthemothershouldbe
permittedtorelocate(at[45])‐[47]).Thefirstofthosereasonswasthefinancial
advantagetothemotherofthemove.Thesecond,whichhisHonourdescribedas
“byfarthemostsignificant”,wastheunhappinessandfrustrationwhichthe
motherwouldfeelifshecouldnotpursueasharedlifewithMrW,andwhich
“wouldundoubtedlyruboffonthechildrenand…haveaneffectonher
parentingcapacity”.HisHonouralsoconsideredthatthemother“wouldbe
extremelyresentfulofthefatherandseeherselfastrappedbyhim…”.”
7
Intheirjointjudgment,Ainslee‐WallaceandBermanJJstate–
“144.GivenhisHonour’sfindingsabouttheimportanceoftherelationship
betweenthechildrenandthemother,specificallythatshehadbeentheir
primarycarer,aswellasthestrongrecommendationofthesingleexpertthat
sheremainso,hisHonour’sconsiderationofthemother’shappinessisthrown
intoclearfocus.
145.Wefindnoerrorinhisconclusionsinthisregard.”
Thetrialjudgmentwasnotseparatelypublishedbutmuchofitisquotedinthe2
appealjudgments.
Sowhatisthestorybeingcraftedofthepartiesinthiscase?
Theimpressionofthemotherfromthejudgmentisofacalmlong‐suffering
womanwithatendencyforunderstatement.Herrelationshipmusthavebeen
difficultasthefather’smentalhealthproblemsweresignificant,bipolardisorder
andalcoholismbutheraffidavitisdescribedasmatteroffactinitsdescriptionof
alltheissues.Post–separationthefathersoughttreatmentanddespitethe
parentingrelationshipbeingdescribedashostile,thereisnocriticismofthe
motherandthechildrenwhohadbeeninherprimarycarehadagood
relationshipwiththeirfather.
Sheispatient.Shedidn’trushintocourt.Sheonlyappliedtorelocatewhen
facedwiththeequaltimeapplication.Sheallowedthefathertoattendmany
extracurricularactivitiesforthechildrenbeyondthetimeintheorders.Shehad
waitedmanyyearstoliveclosetoherpartnerbutwasplanningtorent
separatelyattheCentralCoasttoeasethechildrenintothenewrelationship.
Shecallednoevidencetosayshewouldn’tbeabletocopeifshecouldn’tmove
butcalmlydiscussedherhopesaboutherrelationshipwithMrWwiththefamily
reporter.Shedidn’tmakeabigfussaboutherhopesofhappinessbuthis
8
Honourobviouslyfeltthatshedeservedthechanceofhappiness.Sheisthe
archetypalgoodwoman,agoodmother.Atleastthat’sthestorywereadabout
her.And4judgesstandupforherlegitimateinterestsanddesires.
Thefatherontheotherhandfiledanapplicationforequaltimeorders.A
strategicallybadideaasalljudgesknowthatifsuchanarrangementneedstobe
ordereditisprobablydoomedtofailforthechildren.Wouldn’tyouhavetriedto
talkyourclientoutofthatapplication?Fromtheverystartofthecourtaction,
thestorybeingtoldaboutthefatheristhatheisnotawareofissuesthatmaybe
difficultforhischildren.Wereitnotforthementalhealthissues,hewouldbe
labelledthearchetypalcontrollingman.Andpossiblystillwiththementalhealth
issues.
Thefather’sapplicationfortrialwasthatthechildrenshouldlivewithhimifthe
motherwishedtomovewithoutthem.Acommonenoughorderbutwhatstory
doesittellabouthim?Yesheloveshischildren.He’dgothislifeinorderand
posednoriskotherthaniftheyweretolivewithhim,thestressorsofthe
untestedchangemaycauserelapseproblemsforhim.Butwasitrealistictolet
himmakethatapplication?Wouldn’thehavebeenbetteroffseekingan
extendedweekendtoenablethechildrentostaywheretheywere,attheschools
theywerecomfortablein,workingcooperativelywiththemothertoenableher
tohavetimewithherpartnerwithoutmoving?
Howstrategicwasthefather’sstory?Notstrategicenoughtowin!
Myfinalcuriositycomesfromaninterimparentingdecisiononrelocationwhere
themotherwasself‐represented.
InTimms&Payton[2015]FCCA3324(18December2015)thematterhadbeen
listedforfinalhearinginWollongongNSWinSeptember2015whentheonly
issuehadbeenthetimethefatherwastospendwiththe11yearolddaughter
workingaroundhisroster.Propertymattershadresolvedbyconsentin2014.
Atfinalhearing,theself‐representedmotherannouncedthatshehadpurchased
9
ahouseandwasmovinginDecembertoatowninexcessof2hoursdrivesouth
andwantedtochangethetimesandchangeoverarrangementsforthechild’s
weekendswiththefather,andherschool(foryear6,thelastyearofprimary
school).Thecasewasadjournedoff,anICLwasappointedandthepartiesand
childorderedtoattendaChildInclusiveConferenceconductedbyafamily
consultantemployedbytheCourt.AltobelliJheardargumenton9November
2015anddeliveredabriefinterimjudgmenton18December2015.
TheFamilyConsultantadvisedthatthe11yearolddidnotwanttomoveor
changeschoolsandparticularlywantedtoattendaspecialperformingarts
secondaryschoolnearthefather’shome,thatshelovedandwasloyaltoeach
parentbutthatshewaswellsettledinthecareofhermother.
Thefatheropposedthemove(asdidtheICL)andproposedthechildlivewith
him(forwhichhewouldneedgreatassistancetogethertoschooletc)butwas
alsopreparedtospendtimewiththechildonalternateweekendsandholidays,
subjecttohisroster.Hewasabletomeetforchangeoverasproposedbythe
mother.
ThedifficultyhisHonourfacedwasthatthemotherhadindicatedtotheCourt
“intheclearestpossibleterms”thatwhateverorderthecourtmade,shewas
movingtothenewhouseinDecember2015andthefatherwasanunknown
quantityasaresidenceparentandhisproposedcarearrangementswhilsthe
wasatworkwere“highlyproblematic,tosaytheleast”.
Atparagraph28hisHonourstates–
“OfrealconcerntotheCourtistheattitudeoftheMotherinsuggestingthatshe
willmove,irrespectiveofwhetherXcomeswithher.Thisisaworryingattitude.
ItprioritisesherneedsoverthoseofX.Thereasonsthatshegivesforthemove
areprimarilyfinancialandlifestyle,buthavenotbeencarefullyscrutinisedand,
quitefrankly,soundhollow.Nonetheless,theCourthastomakeadecisionthatis
10
inthebestinterestsofX,andnotallowitselftobedistractedbyissuesof
parentalculpability.”
HisHonourscrutinisedthehistoryofthedisputenotingthattherehadbeen
allegationsofpoorparentingagainsteachparentinthepastbutneitherofthem
raisedthoseascontinuingconcerns.Hethensolvedtheproblemforayearby
allowingthemother’sproposedordersandbringingitbackforfinalhearingin
December2016soafinaldecisioncouldbemadebeforethestartofhighschool
in2017.
ApparentlynoonetoldMsPaytonthatgoodmothersdonotcategoricallystate
thattheywillleavetheirchildrenandmoveanyway.Shefailedtosolvethe
court’sdilemmabyconcedingthatshewouldstayasthemotherdidinUvU
[2002]HCA36whensheconcededshewouldnotreturntoIndiawithoutthe
child,asthemotherdidinJurchenko&Foster[2014]FamCAFC127whenshe
concededshewouldnotleavePerthforthePilbarawithoutthechild,despiteher
desiretobewithhernewpartner.Shestoodhergroundandexercisedherright
tohavethecourtproperlyconsiderandassesstheparties’proposals(although
summarilyataninterimstage).
MsPayton,littlethoughsherealisedorintendedtodoso,forcedthecourtto
challengethestereotypicalstorywhichhasplayedoutmanytimesinrelocation
cases.
JusticeHeereymaysaylitigationhasalargecomponentofsheerluck.Don’trely
onit.Takethetimetothinkthroughandbestrategicwhenyouhelpyourclients
telltheirstoriestothecourt.Wecan’ttellclientshowtoanswerquestionsin
cross‐examinationbutwecanhelpthemtoarticulateandthinkthroughtheir
issuesstrategically.