2Major developments FLA Introduction of the Family Law Act (“FLA”) in 1976 – key concepts – guardianship, custody and accessFamily Law Reform Act 1995 – new concepts – parental responsibility, residence and contact and specific issues (dealing with issues concerning parental responsibility such of schooling, change of name etc)New objects section 60BS65E – best interests of the child paramountS68F(2) – determining best interests – 12 factors listed
32006 reforms the then Federal Attorney General stated that “These are the most significant reforms to the Family Law system in 30 years. The initiatives represent a generation of change in Family Law and aim to bring about a cultural shift in how family separation is managed – away from litigation and towards cooperative parenting solution. The government wants to change the way people think about family breakdowns, and to improve outcomes for children. The government is reforming the system to promote shared or cooperative parenting”
4The 2006 reforms changed the substantive law and legal process but the key issue is the disjunction between the ideal of shared parenting and actual parenting behaviour. See Belinda Fehlberg and Juliet Behrens Australian Family Law: The Contemporary Context Oxford University Press, Melbourne, 2008 page 2262006 terminology – equal shared parental responsibility, lives with, spends time with
5Object of Part VII see s 60B: children’s rights: to ensure that the best interests of the children are met bymeaningful relationship with both parents: s 60B(1)(a)protecting children from abuse: s 60B(1)(b)ensuring children receive adequate and proper parenting s 60B(1)(c)ensuring parents fulfil their duties and meet their responsibilities: s 60B(1)(d)right to know and be cared for by both parents: s 60B(2)(a)right to regular time with parents and significant others: s 60B(2)(b)parents jointly share duties and responsibilities: s 60B(2)(c)parents should agree about future parenting: s 60B(2)(d)right to enjoy their culture: s 60B(2)(e)
6s60CA child’s best interests paramount s60CC determination of best interestss60CD how the views of a child are expresseds60CE child not required to express a views61C parental responsibilitys61D parenting orders and parental responsibilitys61DA presumption of equal shared parental responsibilitys64 meaning of parenting orderss65C who may apply for a parenting orders65DAA equal time, substantial and significant time, reasonable practicabilitys65DAC effect of parenting order providing for shared parental responsibilitys65DAE no need to consult on issues not major long-term issuess4 definition major long-term issuesThese are discussed further below
7UN Rights of the ChildAustralia ratified UN Convention on Rights of Child 17 December Most comprehensive statement children’s rights at international levelConvention had some significance in 1995 reforms. Arguably not adequately reflected child’s right to be heard.Article 3 best interests of a child shall be a primary considerationThis is less stringent than requirement under FLA best interests paramountFull Court in B and B: Family Law Reform Act 1995 (1997) FLC found that Convention could be referred to in interpreting Part VII1995 reforms important guardianship/custody/access gone. New focus on parental responsibility. Concerned old terminology had encouraged people to think of themselves as winners and losers.Recent years hear more about children’s rights and debate about children participating in court proceedings and mediation.
8Parenthood who is a parent? question of who is parent of child is important family law for following reasons:- parents of the child have parental responsibility prior to making a court order: s61C- child support exclusively parentsMost references in FLA where refer to parents also include other persons. Parental responsibility can be allocated to non-parents.Term parent not defined exclusively FLA.
9The impact of biotechnology Increasing use technology in the conception of children which is challenging for the law and ethics.S60H and s60HA FLA amended in 2008Re Patrick: An Application concerning Contact  FLC – sperm donor is not a parent.Re Evelyn  FLC ;  FLC – surrogacy arrangement - highlights the emotional difficulties which can ariseRe Mark: An Application relating to Parental Responsibilities  FLC – gay couple surrogacy arrangementPJ v DoCS  NSWSC 340
10surrogacyState laws – parentage presumptions under Status of Children Act 1996s 14 SOCA – irrebuttable presumption (legal fiction created)s 60H and s60HA FLA amendments were made in 2008 as part of the De facto reforms.
11STATUS OF CHILDREN ACT 1996 - SECT 14 Presumptions of parentage arising out of use of fertilisation procedures14 Presumptions of parentage arising out of use of fertilisation procedures(1) When a married woman has undergone a fertilisation procedure as a result of which she becomes pregnant:(a) her husband is presumed to be the father of any child born as a result of the pregnancy even if he did not provide any or all of the sperm used in the procedure, but only if he consented to the procedure, and(b) the woman is presumed to be the mother of any child born as a result of the pregnancy even if she did not provide the ovum used in the procedure.(1A) When a woman who is in a de facto relationship with another woman has undergone a fertilisation procedure as a result of which she becomes pregnant:(a) the other woman is presumed to be a parent of any child born as a result of the pregnancy, but only if the other woman consented to the procedure, and(b) the woman who has become pregnant is presumed to be the mother of any child born as a result of the pregnancy even if she did not provide the ovum used in the procedure.
12(2) If a woman (whether married or unmarried) becomes pregnant by means of a fertilisation procedure using any sperm obtained from a man who is not her husband, that man is presumed not to be the father of any child born as a result of the pregnancy.(3) If a woman (whether married or unmarried) becomes pregnant by means of a fertilisation procedure using an ovum obtained from another woman, that other woman is presumed not to be the mother of any child born as a result of the pregnancy. This subsection does not affect the presumption arising under subsection (1A) (a).(4) Any presumption arising under subsections (1)-(3) is irrebuttable.(5) In any proceedings in which the operation of subsection (1) is relevant, a husband’s consent to the carrying out of the fertilisation procedure is presumed.(5A) In any proceedings in which the operation of subsection (1A) is relevant, the consent of a woman to the carrying out of a fertilisation procedure that results in the pregnancy of her de facto partner is presumed.(6) In this section:(a) a reference to a married woman includes a reference to a woman who is in a de facto relationship with a man, and(b) a reference (however expressed) to the husband or wife of a person:(i) is, in a case where the person is in a de facto relationship with a person of the opposite sex, a reference to that other person, and(ii) does not, in that case, include a reference to the spouse (if any) to whom the person is actually married.(7) In this section: "de facto partner", in relation to a person, means the other party to a de facto relationship with the person. "de facto relationship" has the same meaning as in the Property (Relationships) Act
13SECT 60H Children born as a result of artificial conception procedures (a) a child is born to a woman as a result of the carrying out of an artificial conception procedure while the woman was married to, or a de facto partner of, another person (the other intended parent ); and(b) either:(i) the woman and the other intended parent consented to the carrying out of the procedure, and any other person who provided genetic material used in the procedure consented to the use of the material in an artificial conception procedure; or (ii) under a prescribed law of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory, the child is a child of the woman and of the other intended parent;then, whether or not the child is biologically a child of the woman and of the other intended parent, for the purposes of this Act:(c) the child is the child of the woman and of the other intended parent; and(d) if a person other than the woman and the other intended parent provided genetic material--the child is not the child of that person.
14(2) If:(a) a child is born to a woman as a result of the carrying out of an artificial conception procedure; and(b) under a prescribed law of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory, the child is a child of the woman;then, whether or not the child is biologically a child of the woman, the child is her child for the purposes of this Act.(3) If:(b) under a prescribed law of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory, the child is a child of a man;then, whether or not the child is biologically a child of the man, the child is his child for the purposes of this Act.(5) For the purposes of subsection (1), a person is to be presumed to have consented to an artificial conception procedure being carried out unless it is proved, on the balance of probabilities, that the person did not consent.(6) In this section:"this Act" includes:(a) the standard Rules of Court; and(b) the related Federal Magistrates Rules.
15FAMILY LAW ACT 1975 - SECT 60HB Children born under surrogacy arrangements (1) If a court has made an order under a prescribed law of a State or Territory to the effect that:(a) a child is the child of one or more persons; or(b) each of one or more persons is a parent of a child;then, for the purposes of this Act, the child is the child of each of those persons.(2) In this section: "this Act" includes:(a) the standard Rules of Court; and (b) the related Federal Magistrates Rules.
16These new provisions have not meant an end to the problems of interpretation etc See Keaton & Aldridge Pascoe CFM held that the parties were not in a de facto relationship at the time of the artificial conception procedure and therefore the applicant could not rely on the presumption in amended s60H. See also Re Michael: Surrogacy Arrangements  FamCA 691 for an example of how the new provisions can lead to strange results. Application for leave to adopt a child born as a result of a family surrogacy arrangement.
17Parentage of child legitimacy Common law distinguished between legitimate and illegitimate children – illegitimate children no one was legally responsible for them. They couldn’t inherit. These were overcome in the 1970s when various jurisdictions passed status of children legislation.equality of status legislation See Status of Children Act 1996 (NSW), esp. s14
18establishing the parentage of children Parentage presumptions used to play very important role when it was impossible to get conclusive medical evidence about who was the father of the child.Blood group evidence ruled out parentage – it had an exclusionary function as it couldn’t positively confirm parentage.presumption of parentage - 5 rebuttable presumptionschild born during a marriage or within 44 weeks of separation or death of husband (69P), child born of a de facto relationship - note time limits beginning not earlier than 44 weeks not later than 20 weeks before birth (69Q), birth registration (69R), court finding (69S), acknowledgment of paternity (69T) [*declarations: s 69VA]rebuttal of presumptions: see s 69U (civil standard)s69P(3) if after separation resume cohabitation if within 3 months cohabitation child born within 44 weeks
19Parentage evidence s 69V (court may require a party to give evidence) s 69VA (parentage declarations) as well as after hearing evidence determining issue parentage for purpose of proceedings court can issue a declaration parentage for purposes of all laws Commonwealth69W (court request) - orders parentage procedure can be own initiative or application of a party or ICLs 69X (types of orders) – to enable testing to be carried out or made more effective order person to submit, provide information medical/family history, costs of procedure, reportnote Regulations
20Failure to complys 69Y (adults) – not liable to penalty if contravene order but court can draw inferences 69Z (children) – mustn’t be carried out without consent of parent or guardian, person with parental responsibilityAlso note ss 69ZA-ZD69ZA no liability if parents consents69ZB regs re carrying out reports and testing procedures69ZC report made in accordance with the regs may be received into evidence69ZD parentage testing for international maintenance agreements
21casesRussell v Russell & Mayer (1923) 129 LT 151 – physical appearance not enough G v H (1994) 181 CLR 387 (reference made to Bringinshaw v Bringinshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336)) (PP)inferenceTNL and CYT  Fam CA 77 (PP) – parentage must be relevant to issue in disputeTryon & Clutterbuck No.2 (2009)
22Parental powers and responsibilities (a) Common lawparental rights: eg name of child, where child resides, administer child’s propertydiminishing nature of parental rights: see Gillick (UK) and Marion (Aust)(b) state and territory powers parens patriae is latin for ‘father of the people’. It refers to the public policy power of the state to ursurp the rights of a natural parent and to act as parent for any child in need of protectionWelfare orders: s 67ZCwelfare power gives court power virtually equivalent to parens patriae power State CourtsOrigins in Chancery (Equity)In G -v- P (1977) VR 44 the court said:... in all matters relating to the custody, guardianship and welfare of all infants, whether born in or out of wedlock (at p 46).wardshipward of the court (parens patriae)ward of the state (Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998)
23K v Minister, Youth & Community Services (NSW)  1 NSWLR 311 s 67ZC(1) (power)how wide is this power?medical/sterilisation casesreferral of powers not extend to adoption and child protection/ welfares69ZK court can’t make an order re a child under state child welfare law unless child ceases to be under that careWelfare orders: s 67ZC welfare power gives court power virtually equivalent to parens patriae power State CourtsRe Alex: Hormonal treatment for gender identity dysphoria  FLCDOCS v Y  NSWSC 644 – anorexic teenager
24Extent of parental responsibility dwindling parental responsibility Parental rights not absolute only exist so far as necessary for care and protection of childrenGillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority  AC 112 (PP)Secretary, Dep. of Health and Community Services v JWB and SMB (Re Marion)  FLC (PP)commonly known as Marion’s case HC adopted Gillick’s case.Re Marion (No.2)  FLC proposed hysterectomy child severely disabled
25Part VII Family Law Act OBJECTS meaningful relationship with both parents: s 60B(1)(a)protecting children from abuse: s 60B(1)(b)ensuring children receive adequate and proper parenting s 60B(1)(c)ensuring parents fulfil their duties and meet their responsibilities: s 60B(1)(d)right to know and be cared for by both parents: s 60B(2)(a)right to regular time with parents and significant others: s 60B(2)(b)parents jointly share duties and responsibilities: s 60B(2)(c)parents should agree about future parenting: s 60B(2)(d)right to enjoy their culture: s 60B(2)(e)
26Part VII Family Law Act s60CA best interests of the child paramount s60CC how child’s best interests are determinedParental responsibility provisionss61B parental responsibility , in relation to a child, means all the duties, powers, responsibilities and authority which, by law, parents have in relation to children.s 61C both parents have parental responsibility subject to court ordersParenting orders and parental responsibilitys61DA presumption of equal shared parental responsibility and parenting ordersSee also s4 FLA definition of major issues
27See definition major issues s 4 FLA "major long-term issues" , in relation to a child, means issues about the care, welfare and development of the child of a long-term nature and includes (but is not limited to) issues of that nature about: (a) the child's education (both current and future); and (b) the child's religious and cultural upbringing; and (c) the child's health; and (d) the child's name; and (e) changes to the child's living arrangements that make it significantly more difficult for the child to spend time with a parent.To avoid doubt, a decision by a parent of a child to form a relationship with a new partner is not, of itself, a major long‑term issue in relation to the child. However, the decision will involve a major long‑term issue if, for example, the relationship with the new partner involves the parent moving to another area and the move will make it significantly more difficult for the child to spend time with the other parent.
28Parental responsibility cases B and B: Family Law Reform Act 1995  FLCH and H  FamCA 27 (PP) – example of presumption not applyingChappell and Chappell  FamCAFC 143 (Parental responsibility)
29Change of nameChapman and Palmer  FLC court has to balance factors for and against name change welfare of child paramount. Set out 6 factors.Skrabl and Leach  FLCMahoney and McKenzie  FLCFooks and McCarthy  FLCFlanagan and Handcock  FLC ; Handcock and Flanagan  FLCKoldsjor & Addington  FamCAFC 21 See also Maluka & Maluka  Fam CA 647 paras 358 to 269 re change of name.
30Children and relationship breakdown Note from the extracts the following points from research:most children want to spent time with both parentsquality of time more important than amount of timenegative impact of ongoing conflict (which does not always end with separation)notion of authoritative parentingNote especially the following extracts:[21.95] Developing Beneficial Parenting Plan Models for Children Following Divorce[21.110] Amato and Gilbreth Nonresident fathers and children’s well-being[21.125] Smyth and Chisholm Exploring Options Parental care following separation a primer for family law specialists[21.135] McIntosh and Chisholm Cautionary Notes on Shared Care of Children in Conflicted Parental Separation
315 parenting orders(a) Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act[22.15] Chisholm Making it Work: 2006 Act(b) the main statutory provisions and their useObjects and principles play significant role in interpretation of the lawS60B objects section.What implications does maximum extent (re meaningful relationship) have for amount of time. how is involvement different from time?For a useful flowchart setting out the parenting sections see page 65 of the Fehlberg and Behrens text available on the supplementary materials website.Who may apply? (s 65C applicant)parent, child, grandparent, concerned personplus connection to Australia s 69E (jurisdiction) child present in Australia or Australian citizen or ordinarily resident or a parent etc
32Court’s powers 65D – court may make such order as thinks proper subject to s61DA and 65DABs 65D(2)) court’s power is subject to presumption of equal shared parental responsibilitys 65DAA court to consider equal time/substantial time parentings 65DAB court must also consider the latest parenting plan (if applicable)s 65DAC effect of parenting order on shared parental responsibility (ie consulting with each other)s 65DAE no need to consult re non-major long term issues. See s4 for definition of major issuesHigh Court emphasized in CDJ and VAJ  that people may reasonably differ on where best interests of child lie. These are values not facts.
33Court’s power s65D – court may make sure order as thinks proper subject to s61DA and 65DAB s65D(2) court’s power subject to presumption of equal shared parental responsibility65DAA court to consider equal or substantial times65AB court to consider latest parenting plan (if applicable)s65DAC effect of parenting order on shared parental responsibilty eg consulting with each otherS65AE no need to consult re non-major issues
34s60CC determining best interests s 60CC(2)+(3) ‘considerations’s 60CC(2): ‘primary’(a) Benefit of child having meaningful relationship with both parents(b) Protect child from abuse or family violences 60CC(3): ‘additional’(a) ‘views’ of child(b) parent/child relationship(c) willingness of parent to facilitate and encourage a close relationship between child and other parent - also see s 60CC(4)/(4A)(d) change of circumstances(e) contact difficulties (including communication)(f) capacity to provide for child’s needs(g) maturity, sex and background/culture(h) ATSI children (right to enjoy culture) – also note s 60CC(6)(i) parental attitudes(j) family violence – also note 60CG (risk factor)(k) family violence order – also note s 60CF(l) further proceedings(m) any relevant fact or circumstance
35Parkinson article two tiers New presumption (starting point) if making parenting orders: s 61DAEqual shared parenting is in the best interests of the child: s 61DA(1)Does NOT apply IF there is abuse or family violence: s 61DA(2)Applies to interim orders: s 61DA(3) and note s 61DBMay be REBUTTED IF not in the best interests of the child: s 61DA(4)(if making parenting orders – ‘trigger’ effect) Court must consider child spending equal time or substantial time with each parent: s 65DAAEqual time: s 65DAA(1)(a) is it in the best interests?(b) is it reasonably practical? – s 65DAA(5)(c) if so, consider making the orderSubstantial and significant time: s 65DAA(2) (when not equal time – again best interests and practicability considered
36Goode v Goode (2006)there is a difference between parental responsibility which exists as a result of s 61C and an order for shared parental responsibility, which has the effect set out in s 65DACwhen making a parenting order in relation to a child, the court must apply the presumption that it is in the best interests of the child for the parents to have equal shared parental responsibilityeven if the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility is not applied and neither party seeks an order for equal time (or by implication substantial and significant time), the court is nonetheless required to consider, in determining what is in the best interests of the child, the arrangements that will promote the child’s best interests
37Goodeit can be fairly said there is a legislative intent evinced in favour of substantial involvement of both parents in their children’s lives, both as to parental responsibility and as to time spent with children, subject to the need to protect children from harm, from abuse and family violence and provided it is in their best interests and reasonably practicablein this case the trial judge, once he had determined that the presumption under s 61DA(1) did not apply, did not address the matters in s 60CC(2) or (3). As noted, maintenance of the status quo, as sanctioned by Cowling, is insufficient to meet the requirements under s 60CC, and the trial judge erred in not giving consideration to those mattersNewlands v Newlands (2007) 37 Fam LR 103Escott v Lowe  FamCA 307 – example of a trial judge working through the stepsMRR v GR
38violenceUntil 1990s marked reluctance by courts to allow allegations of violence by one parent against the other to become relevant in children’s matters. Eg Heidt Jaeger S60K court to take prompt actions re allegations child abuse or family violenceIssue about capacity of courts being able to deal with these allegations quicklyCW v CW Kaye, Stubbs and Tolmie Domestic Violence and Child Contact Arrangements Nawaqualiva v Marshall  FLCIn the Marriage of JG and BG  FLCPatsalou and Patsalou  FLCMaluka & Maluka  Fam CA 647Review notes from topic 6.
39(d) Views and wishes of the child 2006 change from wishes to views seen as emphasizing broader based investigation from child’s perspective. Also consistent with UN Convention Rights of Child.Joannou and Joannou  FLCZN and YH and the Separate Representative  FLCR and R: Children’s Wishes (2000) 25 Fam LR 712
40(e) parent –child relationship Early cases natural parents were preferredGronow and Gronow  FLCRe Evelyn
41(f) sexual orientation of parents In past homosexuality was something to be overcomeL and L  FLC (PP)Check list of matters to consider when a homosexual parent is seeking custody or accessDoyle and Doyle  FLCRe Patrick (2002) FLCRe Mark: An Application Related to Parental Responsibilities  Fam CA 822Consequences of non-recognition of the non-biological parent (note however this is progressively being addressed by Federal and NSW GovernmentsNo rights parental leaveCan’t provide consent for medical proceduresCan’t provide child care centres & schools with valid permissionsProblems with overseas travelLegal parent dies no automatic assumption that the child will continue to live with the co-parent
42Child is at a disadvantage is functional parent dies without a will no automatic entitlements to inheritNSW was recently reformed its lawsS14 of The Status of Children Act has been amended to create parentage presumption in favour of female de facto partner of birth mother.Flow on effect of this is that both mothers can have their name as parents on the birth certificate. They can apply for an amendment retrospectively by consent.S60H and s60HA also been amended in 2008Flynn and Jasper  FMCA Fam 106Applicant referred to as co-parent motherSome discussion about application of s60CC to non-parentSee earlier comments
43(g) Cultural issues and Aboriginality Difficult issues. Greater recognition in recent years with insertion of specific provisions drawing the Court’s attention to cultural issuesB and R and the Separate Representative  FLC (PP)Re CP  FLC (PP)
44(h) Separation of siblings Court required take separation from other children into account: s60CC(3)(d)(ii)Separation is rare. As always in parenting matters best interests child paramount. Children’s views important here(i) status quoReference to status quo is usually referring to situation which has become settled after separation. S60CC(3(d) requires court to consider effect of any changes
45(i)Non-parentsNon-parents can apply for parenting orders. Often contest grandparents, other relatives, step-parentsRice and Miller  FLCparenthood important but not a preference for natural parent. Must determine case on own factsSurrogacy arrangements present new situation
46conduct Historically was an issue Matrimonial conduct not related to welfare of child not relevantConduct that impacts on children isOne form conduct will look at in more detail is kidnapping
47religionCourts have found this difficult to deal with- cases where parties are of different religions or where only one is religious. The believer is likely to argue that being brought up in that faith is necessary for the child’s spiritual welfareFirth and Firth  FLCPaisio and Paisio  FLCPlows and Plows  FLCElspeth & Peter  FamCA 1385 esp paras 79, , 235 – 266, 297Peter & Elspeth  FamCA 551 paras 1 to 9 set out background to litigation, 93 summarises Benjamin J’s findings from the 2006 case, paras 143 to 156 re meaningful relationship, paras 160, 189, 197, 200These cases concern the Exclusive Brethren. They highlight the dilemma the court faces in cases like this.
48(6) Independent representation of children: s68 Court may order appointment of independent children’s lawyer on its on own motion or application of partyCan’t require a child to express a views68LA role of ICLRe K  FLC (PP)criteria for appointment? Guidelines set out in this case. Not exhaustive.
49re K Allegations child abuse Intractable conflict Child apparently alienated from 1 or both parentsIssues of cultural or religious differences affecting childSexual preference either or both parents of other person having significant contact likely to impact on child’s welfareConduct of either or both parents or other person having significant contact with child is alleged to be anti-social to extent seriously impinges on child’s welfare
50Re KIssues significant medical, psychiatric or psychological illness or personality disorders re parent or other significant personOn material filed by parents neither seem suitable custodiansChild mature years expressing strong views which would change long term custodial arrangement or deny a parent access
51Re KWhere one party proposes child be permanently removed from jurisdictionProposal to separate siblingsNone of the parties are representedApplication welfare jurisdiction re medical treatment and children’s interests not adequately represented by 1 of the partiesBrear v Corcoles-Alfaro  FLC (PP)
52(7)Giving effect to agreements Objects refer to desirability of parents reaching agreementParents can give effect to agreements byEntering into consent orders. These are lodged with the court and approved by a registrar, court may have regard to best interestsMaking a parenting plan
53(8)Parenting compliance regime contravention and enforcement (for contempt): Stage 3 - ss 70NJ-70NRthree stage compliance regime: new Division 13AStage 1: Explanation: to improve communication and educate parentsStage 2: Education: remedial measures to improve parenting (education programs)Stage 3: Enforcement: last resort … traditional measures/penalties for enforcement and dealing with inexcusable intentional breaches (imprisonment, fine, bond, CSO)
54Unacceptable risk test (9) Child abuseUnacceptable risk testM v M (1988) 166 CLR 69 (reference made to Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336)) (PP)Re David  FLC (PP)[23.45] A v A 
5523.60] Johnson and PageReferred to Fogarty’s article on unacceptable risk. He summarized principles emerging from M and Mdecisive issue is and always remains best interest of childnature of risk best expressed by term unacceptable riskwhere past abuse alleged usually neither necessary not desirable to reach definitive conclusion on that issueonus proof civil standardits now more appropriate to refer to s140 Evidence Act rather than Briginshaw
56(10) Relocation B and B: Family Law Reform Act 1995  FLC 92-755 A and A: Relocation Approach  FLC set out principles to be applied in relocation cases. 1. Best interests child paramount but not sole consideration. 2. Parent wanting to move can’t be required to show compelling reasons. 3. Court must evaluate parties’ competing proposed. 4. Can’t separate relocation from residence. 5. Evaluate referring to s68FU v U  FLC not bound by parties’ proposals, consider whether other parent could relocateM v S (2006) 37 Fam LR 32 post 2006 didn’t introduce presumption against relocationSampson and Hartnett (No. 10)  Fam CA 1367, (2007) FLC , (2008) 38 Fam LR 315 new dimension considered whether can compel a parent to move. No doubt can order a parent not to relocate.McCall and Clark  FamCAFC 92 international relocation case. Good discussion re meaningful relationship and factors to consider in a relocation case
57(11)Location and recovery orders, watch list orders Location orders – s67J – a location order is a requirement to provide the registrar of the court with information about the whereabouts of a childCommonwealth information orders (s67J(1)(b) may be directed to Commonwealth agencies such as Centrelink or the Child Support Agency. In deciding whether to make a location or information order the best interests of the child is paramount.Recovery order: s67Q to s67X – requires return of childAirport watch list orders – Australian Federal Police
58(12) International Child Abduction Laing v Central Authority  FLCP v Cth Central Authority; JLM v Director-General, NSW Dep. of Community Services  FLC (PP)De L v Director General, NSW Dep. of Community Services  FLC ;  FLC (PP)MW v Director- General, Department of Community Services  HCA 12 (PP)s 65Y/65Z offencealso note ss 65ZA-65BB in relation to obligations of owners of aircraft etcHague Child Abduction Convention (1980)s 111B FLA (note FLAA 2000 changes)Family Law (Child Abduction Convention) Regulationswhat about non-Hague cases? - appropriate forum test or best interests test?
59(13) Variation of Parenting Orders Court has been cautious about allowing parties to reopen proceedingsWell settled principle Rice and Asplund formulated to promote best interests child.SPS and PLS (2008) Fam LR 295 (PP)