FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – CHILDREN – RELOCATION – Whether the Federal Magistrate erred in the treatment of evidence of the mother’s psychologist in relation to the mother’s mental health and emotional wellbeing – Where the Federal Magistrate did have regard to the impact the return would have on the mother and the children and was entitled to treat the psychologist’s evidence as she did in the context of other expert evidence before the Court, no error demonstrated.
FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – CHILDREN – RELOCATION – Whether the Federal Magistrate erred in the application of the legislative pathway for the making of parenting orders under the Act – Where consent orders assigning equal shared parental responsibility between the mother and each respective father were made prior to the delivery of reasons for judgment – Where having made such orders, the Federal Magistrate was obliged to follow the legislative pathway and consider orders for equal, or alternatively substantial and significant time and erred by failing to do so – Where the Federal Magistrate considered the mother’s proposed relocation alone on its merits, then having decided not to allow the application, considered what time the father should spend with the children – Where the Federal Magistrate erred by treating the mother’s application for relocation as the primary issue for determination and by failing to make parenting orders based on an evaluation of each party’s proposal and in accordance with the prescribed legislative pathway applicable to parenting cases, including relocation cases – appeal allowed and applications remitted for rehearing.
FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION TO ADDUCE FURTHER EVIDENCE – Where the appellant mother sought to adduce further evidence detailing her account of events since the decision of the Federal Magistrate denying her relocation application – Where counsel for the mother accepted that the majority of the evidence was contentious but contended it should be admitted to demonstrate the Federal Magistrate’s decision was wrong – Where the appeal is to be allowed, however the controversial nature of the further evidence makes it impossible for this Court to re-exercise the discretion and the matter must be remitted, rendering the evidence unnecessary in the appeal – application dismissed.
NOTE: The period for seeking special leave to appeal to the High Court has not expired.