Interim re-locations may be justified when they are generally consistent with the longstanding arrangements: Larsson & Casey [2016] FamCA 971.

Introduction

This case involved an appeal of an interim order restraining the mother from re-locating one of her children, B, to Darwin. B was born in 2006 and had a sibling, C, born in 2002. The mother and father separated in 2007. Upon separation, both B and C lived with the mother. In 2013, the mother had moved with her new partner, Mr Larsson, some 500km away from the father. B continued living with the mother and C began living with the father. Mr Larsson and the mother had their first child, H, in 2014. Their second child, J, was born in 2016.
Because Mr Larsson had accepted a job offer in Darwin, the mother had applied to the court to have B re-located B to Darwin. The father opposed her application and sought orders that B should live with him if the mother were to move to Darwin. The mother’s application was rejected, so she appealed to the Full Court.

The Full Court’s Decision

The Full Court allowed the mother’s appeal on the basis that the re-location was generally consistent with the current parenting arrangements:

“This case, unlike many that involve a significant increase in distance, does not also involve a substantial change in the time spent with each parent. The move is consistent with the arrangements that until now the parents have accepted as being appropriate for the best interests of B and C. That is, despite the change in location, the move to Darwin involves a stability of relationships and arrangements for both B and C pending a final resolution of the matter. These are the matters that I place significant weight upon in determining that B will continue to live with the mother, albeit in Darwin.”

• There were a number of factors in support of Full Court’s finding that re-location was sufficiently consistent with the current arrangements:
• There would be no substantial change in the amount of time that B would spend with the father if B were to relocate to Darwin;
• Although the re-location would increase the expense associated with B spending time with the father, the mother agreed to pay the expense;
• The re-location would preserve B’s core family relationships; and
• There was no suggestion that the context established by these relationships will adversely affect B’s development.

Concluding Remarks

It’s widely accepted that interstate re-locations are generally rare – particularly when they are sought on an interim basis. Larsson & Casey [2016] FamCA 971 shows that an interim re-location is achievable if the applicant is able to demonstrate that it will bring about minimal change to the child’s circumstances.