6 May 2015
Cases involving the proposed relocation of a child are difficult cases for the Court to decide.  The Family Law Act does not have specific provisions which deal specially with relocation.  
We have therefore analysed the various decisions on relocation to come up with a potted summary of the approaches taken by the Court in deciding relocation cases.  Generally speaking, decisions in relocation cases apply the same criteria as for other parenting cases, namely, what is in the best interests of the child.  There are two types of considerations which must be taken into account when determining the “best interests of a child”: primary considerations and additional considerations. 
Primary considerations are the most important to consider for issues such as relocation. There are two primary considerations:
1. First, the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of the child‘s parents.  This requires the Court to consider whether the proposed relocation will impede the child’s ability to maintain a relationship with the non-relocating parent.  The effect is compounded where the proposed relocation is an overseas one.  If such a move is permitted to take place then the relocating parent will inevitably assume a greater role and presence in a child’s life.  Conversely, contact between the child and the non-relocating parent will become less frequent and less regular.  Their relationship may suffer because of distance and difficulties in communication and organising direct contact.  As a result, one or other of the parents will understandably feel aggrieved whatever the Court decides.
2. Second, the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to or exposed to abuse, neglect or family violence.  This is relevant if the relocating parent can show that it is best for the child to live far from the non-relocating parent to protect them particularly in instances of past abuse toward the child from a parent.
The child’s best interests remain the paramount consideration, but they are not the sole consideration
1. the child’s views and factors which might affect those views, such as the child’s maturity and level of understanding; 
2. the status quo and reasons why the custodial parent wants to relocate.  Note that a parent wishing to move does not need to demonstrate “compelling” reasons.  If the relocating parent can show a good reason, for example, better job prospects in the other location or moving to cement a new relationship, the Court will find this more convincing than if the parent wants to move for a change of scene.  If the relocating parent intends to move because of the actions of the other parent, she will need to show evidence of those actions and their effect on herself, her parenting and the children;
3. the degree of involvement of the non-relocating parent with the child.  The Court may be more inclined to allow relocation where the other parent has little or no contact with the children or there is a history of domestic violence in the relationship.  If the child has regular and frequent contact with both parents and both parents are actively involved with child, it will be more difficult to persuade the Court to allow a long-distance move;
4. the willingness and ability of each parent to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing relationship between the child and the other parent;
5. technology and phone contact.  In some cases modern technology like Skype can facilitate a meaningful relationship between a child and parent where the parent and child already have a strong bond that can survive the relocation;
6. the relocating parent’s “freedom of movement.”  A party’s right to freedom of movement is important.  The child’s best interests will be weighed and balanced with the “right” of the proposed relocating parent to freedom of movement.  However, if necessary, the right to freedom of movement can be outweighed by the Court deciding that there is a need to order an arrangement that is inconsistent with that right but is in the best interests of the child;
7. the happiness of the relocating parent.  The state of mind and mental health of the parent wishing to relocate will be important.  If the relocating parent is the primary carer and has the child residing with them, the Court will consider whether the parent’s mental health would negatively affect their ability to parent if their request to relocate was refused;
8. the competing proposals of the parties.  The Court will evaluate each of the proposals for the children’s living arrangements advanced by each parent.  It is not simply a matter of comparing the relocating party’s proposal against the status quo and allowing or denying relocation.  Rather, the Court must consider each party’s proposal on its own merits, in accordance with the prescribed legislation.  If there is conflict between these considerations, the Court will prioritise the child’s welfare.  However, the child’s welfare will not be viewed as a separate abstract concept from the circumstances of the parent with whom the child resides;  
While the Court must consider the proposals presented by the parties, the Court may also be required to come up with alternative proposals in the child’s best interests.  Although the Court is not bound by the parties’ proposals, it must not order an arrangement that the parties have not sought without giving reasonable notice and giving the parties an opportunity to be heard in relation to the arrangement;
9. whether the relocating parent has family in the existing location;
10. whether the relocating parent has family and/or a new relationship in the new location;
11. whether the non-relocating parent is able to move.   In an appropriate case, the Court may ask whether the party who opposes the proposed relocation can move to a place which is close (or closer) to where the child will be living if the relocation goes ahead;
12. whether there are other children involved in either current or new location;  
13. the financial implications or career implications of a move; and
14. the cost and practical difficulty of the non-relocating parent spending time with and communicating with the child;
15. the extent to which each parent has or has not previously met their parental responsibilities (for example, not paying child support); and 
16. any events or circumstances since separation.
As you can see, the legislation requires the Court to consider many factors, but does not provide guidance as to the order in which such matters are to be considered, or what weight is to be attached.  Note that the legislation does not require consideration of the relevant factors in any particular order.
Each case is decided based on the unique facts of the particular case.  The discretionary nature of determining the child’s “best interests” means that it is difficult for parties seeking relocation to navigate the process on their own.
If you are thinking about relocating with your child intra-state, inter-state or overseas, it is essential that you receive Family Law advice early on to determine the best course of action.  You may contact our Family Law team at HHG who can provide advice tailored to your specific circumstances. 
This is only general information and does not constitute specific legal advice.  If you would like further information in relation to this matter or other legal matters please contact our office on Freecall 1800 609 945 or email us now.

100 years of Supporting West Australians

"Always fast and thorough service. Thank you"

Sitka Pil

My circumstances at the time I made contact with HHG were dire following my argument being rejected by two no win no fee firms. Following my initial meeting with HHG's employment law team I was left feeling extremely positive by the response and concern shown by HHG in regards to their support of my argument along with their preparedness to pursue an outcome on my behalf.

I accept the fact that nobody really wins in these cases (mental health/ workplace) however the end result was what would be considered most favourable and far in excess of what would have been achieved had I not sought the advice from HHG.

I have no hesitation in recommending HHG to anyone caught up in the messy circumstances I found myself in at the time.

Great advice and five-star commitment to their client!!"

Nathan Lynch

"Thank you for such great assistance with the transaction of Flying Domestics on behalf of Lorna Good. It has been such a pleasure to work with the HHG Legal Group and I look forward to working with you in the future."

Jim Goodwin

"Simon Creek and his team were at all times empathic, professional and confident.  My matter needed to be addressed within a pressing time frame, and their availability at short notice and contact after hours was much appreciated.  It caused me considerable stress, but having such a thoroughly reliable and competent team to call on helped me to feel in control. Although I hope not to need their services again in future, I would be confident in doing so!"

Dr Lana Bell

"A good outcome is what we can expect.  A great outcome is a sign of a company which does the very best for their clients. A very big thank you to Daniel Morris for showing empathy towards my small and much needed legal action.

To HHG Legal Group, thank you for a great outcome.  I would recommend your company to anyone seeking legal services."

Jan Atkinson

"Your support this morning was amazingly kind, not to mention your totally reassuring competence, knowledge and wisdom that you used on my behalf.  It was extremely reassuring to have your knowledgeable support, and I particularly appreciated your real and obvious kindness to me. It means so much at a very difficult time. I'm so grateful to you."

Family Law Client

"Janene was very professional and we established a good rapport quickly. The subject of death and wills can be quite confronting to deal with, however, Janene's approach was soft and accommodating."

Lynette Livesey

"A big thank you to HHG for their professional service, continued support, and wide range of legal knowledge. Our clients have given us nothing but kind words regarding HHG Legal Group and so we have no hesitation in referring and recommending Simon Creek and HHG Legal Group for their outstanding services and legal expertise."

Nigel Plowman, Director at McKinley Plowman & Associates

"Simon is a friendly and practical legal advisor. I have received great feedback from the clients I have referred to him and his team at HHG Legal Group."

Richard Beal, Director at BDO

"Over the last few years, I have been impressed by Simon’s legal ability, management skills, entrepreneurial spirit, personal integrity and people skills. He appears to be that rare breed of lawyer – both knowledgeable and commercial."

Michael Malone, Founder of iiNet

"Our family has been a client of HHG Legal Group over many years.  Business has included drawing up of wills for three generations and preparing of probate for my father in law. I would have no hesitation in recommending HHG Legal Group to anyone requiring such services."

Bernice Climie

"You should be congratulated for the manner in which your staff address clients and we found our dealings with your company, once again a very pleasant experience and we would like to truly thank you for your efforts."

Steve Harvey and Jane Powell

"HHG Legal were absolutely fantastic. Extremely responsive and brought calm to our chaotic family situation through their knowledge and caring attitude. Extremely professional from our very first contact with them and they expertly guided our family though the required legal process over almost a 12 month period."

Amanda Williamson

"Fantastic team! They really care about their client. Tim Colcutt is a 'go that extra mile' guy who gives his client his all. I can't recommend HHG and Tim enough."

Kerry Samson

"I had a fantastic lawyer in Anne Hurley. She helped me out a great deal with good, sound advice in a friendly, professional manner. First class, thanks Anne"

Graeme Hammond

"Marine Plant Systems has been working with HHG Legal Group for a few years now and they continually provide first-class service. Their professional advice has been invaluable to our company."

Carolin Grimm - Marine Plant Systems

"We were kept up to date at all times. Pricing was always updated over the time period so we remained "in budget". Personal access to someone whenever I had questions. All in all a great experience without too much fuss."

Rosslyn Tasker - COO AltusQ Pty Ltd

"Good service you can count on."

Miles Lee

"HHG Legal Group has provided outstanding support as I have taken the journey of buying a business, their professionalism is beyond reproach. Their assistance throughout the Due Diligence process has been invaluable, I would fully recommend them."

Mark Armitage

"Very friendly and efficient service - what a pleasure working with Anne."

Jacques Taylor

"I highly recommend Daniel from HHG Legal Mandurah. When dealing with a complicated legal property matter recently I was extremely impressed by Daniel's honesty and integrity and the legal advice I received. I am very happy with the service from HHG Legal."

Tony Walker