Family Court Stops Mother Taking Children Overseas to live
30 July 2010
In the case of Cowley and Mendoza decided in the Family Court of Australia in July 2010, a mother of two young children aged 3 and 5 was refused permission to take those children back to her home-land of Brazil. The father was an Australian and he had met the mother whilst on a back-packing holiday. They married in Brazil in 2003 and in the subsequent years spent some time in Brazil and some time in Australia. In 2008, they decided to make Australia their home and to educate the children in Australia.
Unfortunately, the marriage broke down in March 2009 and they separated under the one roof. In this case, both parents played a very active role in the care and upbringing of the children.
The mother's proposal was that the children should be permitted to relocate to Brazil as she considered that to be the best option. The father wished the children, and the mother- if she decided to stay in Australia, to remain living in Australia as the best option- he, himself not being willing to relocate to Brazil. He proposed that the parenting be shared in Australia.
The Judge made the following findings:
In my view, the mother’s choices have neither more, nor less, “legitimacy” than the father’s choices. The mother – understandably and legitimately – wishes to live in Brazil. Brazil is a country where her family lives and with which she identifies. She considers it a preferable place to live to Australia. It is understandable that a caring and loving mother would want her children to live with her in that country. Equally, the father –understandably and legitimately - wishes to live in Australia. It is the country of his birth. He likes living here. He considers it a preferable place to live to Brazil. It is understandable that a caring and loving father would want to have his children living with him in Australia.
…. The issue is, “where [do] the best interests of [these two young children] lie and what arrangements will best serve those interests. To that statement it need now be added “if (as here) the parents are to share equally parental responsibility, is an equal time order (or substantial and significant time order) ‘reasonably practicable’”.
The findings which, all parties agree, are uncontroversial in this case and which are enumerated in Exhibit 1 are:
1. The children are each very young and are too young to express “views”;
2. Additionally, the children are too young to appreciate the effect of separation from either of their parents;
3. The children are closely bonded and attached to each of their parents;
4. Whilst allegations are made by each parent about alleged parenting deficiencies in the other, each parent is, in fact a “good enough parent” as that expression is used by Ms E in her report (that is, in the sense coined by the British paediatrician, psychiatrist and psychoanalyst Donald Winnicott and used thereafter in the psychological literature);
5. In that respect, Ms E is right when she says (para 49) that, while both parents allege limitations in the other’s parenting, if what each alleges about the other is true, it does not necessarily strengthen their respective individual arguments. That is emphasised by (among other things) reference to the respective proposals for the involvement of the other parent in each parent’s proposals;
6. Apart from a period of about 6 months two years ago, when the children were about 3 and 18 months old, they have lived with both of their parents, including during the almost 12 months that the parties have been separated under the one roof;
7. Any proposal, including a co-parenting arrangement in Australia, will involve a change for the children to what they have erstwhile experienced;
8. A proposal that sees their parents separated with one living in Australia and one living in Brazil will involve a very significant change for them;
9. If the children stay with one parent and the other parent does not move to Brazil or stay in Australia as the case may be, the children will be separated from an important loved person in their lives and the children are likely to suffer at least some emotional detriment as a result. In particular such a result, to use Ms E’s words, “can be destabilising, thus, undermining their capacity to form secure attachments to either of their parents and form healthy relationships as adults. Such an arrangement can cause children to become anxious and stressed which can impact upon their developmental progress”;
10. In the event of that separation “whilst regular communication would assist in compensating for this loss [of both parents regularly in their lives], at this age it is not a satisfactory replacement / alternative to regular experiential time” (Ms E par 58);
11. In the event of that separation, the amount of “experiential time” will, by reason of the parties’ respective proposals, and practical considerations of cost and distance, be effectively reduced to a couple of times per year;
12. A relationship bounded by that “experiential time” [again adopting Ms E’s words] “is not good enough, particularly at [D] and [R’s] age”;
13. Each parent is likely to react with distress and disappointment to a decision not in accordance with their desired outcome.
The Judge was ultimately of the view that… To separate the children now from one of their parents by virtue of relocating to another country would essentially make the other parent an absent figure in their lives, a virtual stranger. Whilst regular communication would assist in compensating for this loss, at this age, it is not a satisfactory replacement/alternative to regular experiential time. …...Relocation to another country, in my opinion, essentially rules ... out [regular time between children and the ‘absent’ parent]. It is simply not practical. The children’s time with the other parent is generally reduced to a couple of weeks, once or twice a year. This is not good enough, particularly at [these children's] ages.
The mother was denied permission to relocate the children overseas to Brazil and Final Orders were made for equal shared parental responsibility and for the children to spend part of each week with either parent in Australia.
Every Case is Different
Despite the outcome in the above case, there is no "rule" against a parent re-locating to an overseas country if the circumstances warrant it. Melbourne Family Lawyers have extensive experience in the field of international re-locations and we suggest that you contact us for specific expert advice for your unique set of circumstances.
Can we agree on a Family Law settlement without going to Court?
25 October 2018 -
Can we agree on a Family Law settlement without going to Court? This is a question asked by many clients at Melbourne Family Lawyers. The answer is both yes and no.
Melbourne Family Lawyers Obtain Federal Circuit Court Injunction to Prevent Mother Taking Children from Melbourne to Western Australia
6 September 2018 -
This court case came about when one of clients Eddie (not his real name) found out that his ex-wife Roma (not her real name) was intending to take their two primary school age children to live in Western Australia. Eddie and Roma had been separated since 2010 and Roma had since re-married. Since separation, the children had primarily been living with Roma at her home in Melbourne.
Defending an Intervention Order in Victoria
25 January 2017 -
An Intervention Order is a Court Order which is made by a Magistrate in the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria against a person (the Respondent) who has committed family violence against a family member (the Aggrieved Family Member).
Can I move with my child to live in a different suburb or outside of Melbourne without the other parent’s consent?
20 July 2016 -
Some of the most frequent questions asked by clients of Melbourne Family Lawyers are concerning the issue of whether the client is allowed to take a child to live somewhere else, be that within Australia or overseas.
The Best Family Law Advice from Melbourne Family Lawyers
20 July 2015 -
At Melbourne Family Lawyers, we don’t offer a “free” first consultation and use it to market our services to you. The first meeting with one of our lawyers is scheduled for one hour because we know it will take a bit of time to listen to your story so that we can understand your situation and what is important to you and what you would like to achieve.
Beware of Family Lawyers offering Free Initial Consultations
26 November 2014 -
Have you come across the recent advertising from Family Lawyers offering “free initial consultations”? Have you stopped to think why those lawyers are doing that?
The Question: How much overnight time should a child spend with the other parent?
30 June 2014 -
This is a question clients often posed to Family Lawyers and Family Law Court judges. Whilst each parent may have a different personal (often rigid) opinion, what do the experts have to say about this?
How much overnight time should a child spend with the other parent?
23 June 2014 -
It used to be the case that “expert opinion” was that children under three were considered to have a primary attachment with their primary carer (often the mother) and it was best for them to spend most of their time with the parent with whom they had the primary attachment. The other parent was encouraged to have regular but frequent contact of a few hours once or twice a week. Amendments to the Family Law Act in 2006 were enacted to promote the following objectives to guarantee that the best interests of children are met.
Choosing the best Family Lawyers – Is it worth travelling to Melbourne?
26 November 2013 -
Many people believe that it is not worth the hassle of coming into Melbourne to get advice from a Specialist Family Lawyer. There are good reasons why Melbourne Family Lawyers is located in William Street Melbourne (adjacent to the Family Court of Australia and the Federal Circuit Court of Australia).
What to Expect from a Family Lawyer
8 November 2013 -
A Family Lawyer will advise you as to his or her opinion as to where you stand when applying the applicable Family Law to your particular situation. However, a Family Lawyer will never be able to provide you with a definitive outcome in your case as the outcome of your case will depend on the following.
Defending a Family Law Property Settlement Case in Melbourne Family Law Courts
14 October 2013 -
If you receive an Initiating Application which is to be heard in the Family Court of Australia or the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, you are entitled to put your position to the Court by filing a Response together with other court documents required under the Family Law Rules. Those other documents may include sworn Affidavits and/or a Financial Statement (for property settlement or maintenance cases).
How do you Change existing Child Custody and Contact Orders (Parenting Orders) in Australia?
25 June 2013 -
As children grow older and relationships change, a previously made Court Order concerning the arrangements for the care of a child or children may no longer be appropriate. However, the Court Order remains in force until one (or both) of the parties to the court order initiate legal action to legally change it. If both agree, whilst it is possible to informally change the ongoing care arrangements for children without changing the court orders, it may lead to problems should someone later change his/her mind. It is usually better to legally formalise child arrangements with court orders.
Family Violence Safety Notices and Intervention Orders under the Family Violence Protection Act Victoria
23 May 2013 -
In Victoria, legal protection is available for family members and their associates who need protection from a family member who is subjecting them to family violence. Family violence has a broad legal definition which includes abuse which is physical, sexual, emotional, threatening, economically abusive, or, in any other way controls or dominates the family member and causes that family member to feel fear for his/her safety.
Which Family Law Court in Melbourne?
8 April 2013 -
Clients are sometimes confused about which Family Law Court is appropriate to hear their case in Melbourne. This is understandable as there are three separate courts on the same street in Melbourne which have jurisdiction on Family Law related issues.
Can I move out of Victoria without a Family Law Court Order?
1 March 2013 -
Whether you are allowed to move out of your current home to a new place depends on a number of factors.
Finding the Best Family Law Firm in Melbourne
15 January 2013 -
So your spouse has just announced, "It's over!" and you need to find a law firm to help guide you through one of the most stressful situations you are going to face. Where do you start? Do you go back to your local conveyancing law firm who looked after the purchase of your home?
Why are there more Intervention Orders in the Melbourne Magistrates Court?
14 December 2012 -
Over the past years, there has been a great increase in the number of Court Applications made to the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court for the granting of Intervention Orders under Victoria’s Family Violence legislation. There may be a number of reasons for this.
12 March 2012 -
Section 61DA of the Family Law Act requires a Court, when making a parenting order in relation to a child, to apply a presumption that it is in the best interests of the child for the child's parents to have equal shared parenting responsibility for the child.
Collaborative Family Lawyers - What Women (and Men) Want!
10 August 2011 -
Marriage is a strange phenomenon that happens to human beings. And the best part is, both the unmarried and the married are unhappy, though for radically opposite reasons, one for not being married, and the other for being married.
Finding out with Family Law: Parentage Tests
14 January 2011 -
Parentage tests determining the parent of the child may be needed for Family Law Lawyer matters such as child support payments, custody, access, inheritance and adoption. But with these matters, more matters arise including questions about processes and legal requirements.
Family Court Pre Action Procedures
9 March 2009 -
Family Law Disclosure Rules
22 January 2009 -
A direct extract from Family Law Rules- Parts 13.1 and 13.2
Talk to us now for advice about your situation by phoning (+61) 03 9670 9677