LawAnswers.com.au - Australia's #1 Legal Community

LawAnswers.com.au is a community of 10,000+ Australians, just like you, helping each other.
Ask a question, respond to a question and better understand the law today!
Join us, it only takes a minute:

SA Likelihood of Relocation After Separation?

Discussion in 'Family Law Forum' started by beans, 19 July 2016.

  1. beans

    beans Active Member

    Joined:
    19 July 2016
    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thoughts on the likely outcome?

    Parent A has had the children (4,5,8) in their care since separation three years prior. Parent B has seen children irregularly for first two years and then twice weekly overnight for 10 months. Parent A ceased overnight access to children four months ago on grounds of abuse toward children ( police reports and other authorities contacted and still under investigation). Domestic violence / family abuse from Parent B towards Parent A and children for many years, some requiring hospitalization. No IVO is in place.

    Police and other services are aware of circumstances. Parent B admits to drug use. Parent A has encouraged communication multiple times a week by the children via phone calls to parent B. Parent B has not contacted children via phone or taken offers from parent A to see the children regularly supervised.

    Parent A has attended mediation and a cert was issued to say not appropriate. Parent A has completed a parenting after separation course. Parent B has initiated emergency interim orders and final orders of children to live with parent B and see Parent A at times agreed on. Parent A is planning to move interstate. The plan has been in motion for 9 months. Parent B was unfazed by Parent A planning to relocate with children until Parent B became aware Parent A had re-partnered.

    Parent A has depression and PTSD. Parent A is being treated for this. Parent A proposes Parent B spend time with children for all of school holidays and every second Christmas whilst also paying for Parent B's travel to facilitate this, providing it is found safe for the children to spend unsupervised time with Parent B. Both parties have large extended family in the proposed relocation state.

    I am obviously trying to keep this as anonymous as possible and wish to not say if parent's A and B are male and female, etc. to attempt at an unbiased opinion on this. I will try to answer questions as best I can.

    I am curious to know if Parent A would likely be allowed relocation, etc.

    Thank you for taking the time to read :)
     
  2. sammy01

    sammy01 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    27 September 2015
    Messages:
    1,059
    Likes Received:
    125
    How far are you looking at moving?

    There are other factors, extended family, etc. that need to be considered.

    You're best bet is to seek orders to allow relocation rather than leaving and hoping the other parent doesn't seek recovery orders...
     
    beans likes this.
  3. beans

    beans Active Member

    Joined:
    19 July 2016
    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi @sammy01, thank you for the reply.

    As the court process has now been started via Parent B, Parent A is attempting to have the relocation drawn into the final orders, or sole parental responsibility thus allowing the move. Parent A's relocation would be to south east QLD. Both Parent A and B are from this area originally and all of both parents immediate and extended family's are there.
     
  4. AllForHer

    AllForHer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    23 July 2014
    Messages:
    2,319
    Likes Received:
    423
    Parent A isn't going to get sole parental responsibility. You haven't listed any reason why shared parental responsibility shouldn't remain the presumption, and all it will do is show the Court that Parent A has no intention of supporting and encouraging the child's relationship with Parent B in the event they're allowed to relocate.

    Adding to that is the fact that Parent A stopped the children from seeing Parent B for a period of four months, citing fear of Parent B, but didn't even bother to involve the police. Not very persuasive allegations, and not sure how Parent A intends to use that unilateral decision as evidence of their ability to support the children's relationship with Parent B if the relocation is permitted.

    The offer of 'communication and supervised visits' seems shallow, at best, considering there's no IVO. If I were Parent B, I wouldn't take the offer either.

    It sounds like Parent A has attempted to oust Parent B from the children's lives as a precursor to relocation. Parent A has done very little to show they're capable of supporting the kids' relationship with Parent B if they're allowed to relocate (other than superficial offers of supervised time, and now holiday time since Parent B sought Court intervention), so Parent B would have grounds to argue that if they go to live with Parent A, they won't be able to maintain a meaningful relationship with Parent B in line with their legal right to do so.

    Just my thoughts.
     
  5. beans

    beans Active Member

    Joined:
    19 July 2016
    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thank you for your reply @AllForHer , I do not believe you meant for your thoughts to come across as so presumptive of the capabilities or your belief lack there of, of parent A to facilitate an on going relationship with parent B. I will not go into details other then to say parent A has, and would continue to go above and beyond to insure the children have a meaningful yet safe relationship with parent B. Parent B is a very important person in the lives of these children and parent A fully acknowledges the fact that children deserve a close relationship with both parents.

    As for the other comments on what you took as parent A not involving police etc I will say that parent A has involved ALL relevant authorities in this ongoing matter. Parent A has chosen to not apply for an IVO as it would not allow the children to see parent B without difficulty as currently there are no family court orders present. As parent B has not attended at parent A house for a number of months or assaulted parent A for the same amount of time, there is no reason for the police to seek there own IVO on parent B, though police have advised parent A if they are to even see parent B in there town to contact 000 immediately as they are well aware of the safety concerns.

    Parent A is led to believe one of the main reasons that sole parental responsibility could be determined is family violence, including all aspects of that violence and abuse as witnessing and being party to the acts perpetrated by parent B. there are also the concerns of parent B's drug use and parent B's own admission to this.

    The evidence that parent A has regarding these incidents is extensive to say the lest, however this is not exactly somewhere that these things should be divulged in there full.

    I am only seeking opinions on how the courts could rule on this sort of thing if all of what has been said above is found to be 100% fact.

    Thank you
     
  6. AllForHer

    AllForHer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    23 July 2014
    Messages:
    2,319
    Likes Received:
    423
    What I read is:

    - Alleged domestic violence not supported by third party evidence, which means Parent A is relying on he-said-she-said evidence to support a very serious claim;

    - Orders sought for sole parental responsibility on grounds of alleged domestic violence with no third party evidence, which means failure to see that it's in children's best interests to have both parents involved in decisions affecting their lives;

    - No evidence of attempt to reinstate children's time with father in genuine fashion, even though there's also now an admission that the father doesn't pose a risk because there's been no issues for months;

    - Still no attempt by Parent A to reinstate the children's time with Parent B, even with the knowledge that they will see Parent B even less if the relocation is allowed.

    In addition to the above, Parent A has taken a very streamlined approach to how all of this should be dealt with - supervised time and an order for sole parental responsibility. The Court, as Parent A will no doubt discover, is far more favourable to flexibility - if what has you've stated is fact, then it's more likely to limit communication and contact between the parents to reduce the likelihood of the children being exposed to conflict, and it's more likely to restrain the use of drugs and alcohol prior to and during the children's time with Parent B. What it's not likely to do is award sole parental responsibility and force supervised time between Parent B and the kids.

    Forgive me, I am not trying to dissuade Parent A, but I am inviting Parent A to think carefully about how their case is currently framed in order to improve the likelihood of success.
     
  7. sammy01

    sammy01 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    27 September 2015
    Messages:
    1,059
    Likes Received:
    125
    Ok so warning - be careful. You've come here looking for help. Allforher, was nice enough to offer some information based on the info you provided. Then you have had a go at her for it...

    So let me have a go... You "fully acknowledge the fact that children deserve a close relationship with both parents." Great problem solved, don't leave because that will impact on the child's relationship with the other parent. So do you see how your words and planned actions are contradictory?

    So as far as 'allegations of violence' you've got nothing but hearsay. You don't have a conviction You have what you think is evidence. But it hasn't been tested in a court.... That might be a bit of a game changer... Maybe

    Now you reckon sole parental responsibility is a possibility. If the other parent has a long history (with convictions) for child abuse - then you've got a chance. But only a chance...

    So I was in your situation. The primary carer wanted to move 9 hours away. I had an AVO against me that had expired. My ex will tell you that she had evidence that I was a drunk, a druggo, a dangerous person, a useless dad and an oxygen thief. She threatened me with court she threatened me with making false accusations against me - that she said she had evidence to prove her claims. Eventually, she gave up and now the kids live with me....

    Now at the time I had my kids 5 a fortnight so that helped my cause. Your ex doesn't have any time with the kids. Not good on their part, but, hang on, the reason the kids don't see the other parent is because of you.

    Now the other parent is seeking orders that swap where the kids live from with you to with them. That is pretty drastic. So one of the problems here is were only getting a small part of the picture, painted by you.

    The other parent clearly is seeing a different picture otherwise, they are mad to look to swap where the kids live. But it hints to me that one of you is well off the money. So you want sole parental responsibility - so effectively remove the other parent from them having any say about their own kid and you want to move the kid away from the other parent...

    Meanwhile the other parent wants to see their kid and wants orders provide for you to see the kid too, which one sounds more reasonable to you?

     
  8. beans

    beans Active Member

    Joined:
    19 July 2016
    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sole parental responsibility is the only one part that parent A's barrister is looking at. Parent A is unsure of the options at this point as there has only been one meeting with the barrister so far. There are numerous evidence in relation to the family violence/ abuses, including reports made by various departments, statements, photographs, third party witnesses.

    The abuse have stopped for parent A for the last few months, however not for the children involved. Parent B regularly attends places that the children frequent and such violence and abuse then occurs. The departments required are well aware of this and so are trying to limit it as much as possible, and making reports to the right places.

    The proposal from parent A in regards to the amount of time that parent B would spend with the children if relocation was permitted and if it is found safe is actually more days then the first arrangement that was in place between both parents.
     
  9. beans

    beans Active Member

    Joined:
    19 July 2016
    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have not "had a go" at anyone, and if it ever seemed that way I do apologise. I will say this, though. It sounds very much like you have both had some issues with people making false accusations and the like, if this is the case then that is truly terrible and I honestly really feel for you. People should not be able to get away with that by any means.

    However, it does feel like I am having to try and "prove" that what has and is going on is truth. How on earth could that possibly be done over an internet chat site? All I am asking is with all of the things that is stated to have happened, what could be the outcomes? I am not here to try and prove anything. If it will sit easier to give help on this, then think of it has a hypothetical.

    Thank you
     
  10. AllForHer

    AllForHer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    23 July 2014
    Messages:
    2,319
    Likes Received:
    423
    By all means, don't take our word for it. Go forth and read the hundreds of family law decisions freely available on Austlii about relocation, change of residency, sole parental responsibility and failure to support a child's relationship with the other parent. In fact, it would probably serve you well to do so.

    Nobody here can tell you what the Court will decide, and neither can your barrister. What we can do is tell you how to improve your chances of success. At the moment, I see a lot of merit in the father's case, and I haven't even read any of the facts he's provided.
     

Share This Page

Loading...