AMS v AIF

1. In accordance with the Central Practice Direction - Family Law Case Management, not later than 4.00pm on 13 April 2026, each party must file and serve:

(a) an Amended Application or Response as appropriate, setting out the precise orders sought, if the most recently filed Application or Response is not current;

(b) an undertaking as to disclosure in accordance with r 6.02 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth); and

(c) a Certificate of Readiness in the approved form.

1. Not later than 4.00pm on 15 April 2026, the parties or their legal representatives confer in order to be able to advise the Court of the following matters at the Compliance and Readiness Hearing:

(a) the factual issues requiring determination at a Final Hearing;

(b) the main legal and factual contentions advanced in relation to each issue in dispute;

(c) the proposed witnesses (including expert witnesses) and their availability;

(d) whether interpreters are required;

(e) whether the matter is appropriate to be heard by videoconference;

(f) the estimated length of the Final Hearing and proposed trial plan; and

(g) whether any other step is required in order for the matter to proceed to a Final Hearing.

1. Not later than 4.00pm on 17 April 2026 the parties provide a draft minute in Microsoft Word format setting out with precision any procedural orders sought to aid the limiting of issues or time required for the Final Hearing, by email to the Chambers of the Compliance and Readiness Hearing Judge at ...@...

1. There is liberty to apply to the court at short notice in the event an issue arises after the child impact report, which is to be conducted in January 2026, is released to the parties.
2. If the Compliance and Readiness Hearing does not proceed or the matter is unable to be listed for Final Hearing as a consequence of the non-compliance of one party, consideration will be given to a grant of leave to the complying party or parties to proceed on an undefended basis and to orders for costs.

1. If the contents of a Certificate of Readiness are found not to be accurate, consideration will be given to a grant of leave to the non-defaulting party or parties to proceed on an undefended basis and to orders for costs.

1. Any adjournment of the Compliance and Readiness Hearing is at the discretion of the presiding Judge, and such requests must be made jointly in writing to the presiding Judge's Chambers no less than 7 days prior to the Compliance and Readiness Hearing at ...@...
2. In the event that any party fails to comply with these Orders, the Court may order that they pay the legal costs of the other party resulting from their non-compliance, the matter may be listed for an undefended hearing or the proceedings or part of the proceedings may be dismissed pursuant to r 10.237 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
3. If in any proceedings there are allegations of family violence and the provisions of s 102NA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) apply (see attached Family Violence Information Sheet), any unrepresented party will not be permitted to personally cross-examine the other party/parties.
4. Affected unrepresented parties may apply to the Commonwealth Family Violence and Cross Examination of Parties Scheme ("the Scheme") for representation but any such application must be made at least 12 weeks prior to the final hearing. Further information about the legislation and the Scheme can be found at Part 4 of the attached Family Violence Information Sheet.
5. If s 102NA applies and a party becomes unrepresented after trial directions have been made, that party is required to promptly advise the Court.
6. Section 114Q of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) provides that it is an offence punishable by imprisonment for up to one year to communicate to the public an account of family law proceedings which identifies a party to the proceedings, a witness in the proceedings, a person related to, or associated with, a party to the proceedings, a person who is, or alleged to be, in any other way concerned in the matter to which the proceedings relate, unless specifically authorised by the Court.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court's records.

Note: This copy of the Court's Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

1. This is a parenting matter concerning one child, X, aged five and born in 2020 ("X"). It is a review of a decision of Senior Judicial Registrar Crocker ("the SJR") on the second of October this year. Accordingly, it is a hearing de novo.
2. The mother, Ms Rollins ("the mother"), is reviewing the SJR's decision which ordered the mother to return with X from New South Wales, where she had unilaterally relocated, to live back in Victoria.
3. The mother has since returned to Victoria but seeks that she be permitted to relocate back to New South Wales.
4. The father, Mr Hoffman ("the father"), opposes the mother's relocation to New South Wales.
5. The mother says that if X is required to stay in Victoria, she will not relocate to New South Wales.

1. The parties commenced a relationship in or about August 2019.
2. The father says they separated in January 2021. The mother says 2020.
3. During the relationship, the parties lived in a suburb of Sydney, New South Wales.
4. After separation X lived with the mother. On any version of events, he was not yet two years of age when the parties separated.
5. In mid-2021, the mother unilaterally relocated with X to Melbourne, Victoria. At that time, she said she had more supports in Melbourne, had a job opportunity, had a house she owned in Suburb C, and said that overall, it was cheaper for her to live in Melbourne.
6. The father commenced proceedings on the 23 August 2021.
7. Orders were made by her Honour Judge Beckhouse on 9 September 2021 permitting the mother to remain in Melbourne with X on an interim basis. The orders also provided for X to spend time with the father on alternate weekends. This naturally resulted in a lot of travel between Sydney and Melbourne for the parties, and of course, young X.
8. The father subsequently decided to relocate to Melbourne to be closer to X in June 2022.
9. In November 2023, there were final parenting orders made after a trial which gave the mother sole parental responsibility and provided for one overnight each alternate weekend (and school holidays) with weekend time to increase upon the father attending a men's behavioural change course ("the final orders").
10. Notwithstanding the father did not complete the men's behavioural change course, the mother agreed to the father increasing his alternate weekends to two overnights in June 2024.
11. The father says that the mother first raised the issue of relocating back to New South Wales in July 2024. The father says that he made it clear he did not consent to that relocation.
12. In January 2025, the wife's former lawyer wrote to the father formally requesting consent to the relocation or otherwise proceedings would be initiated. The father remained opposed to the proposal. This was reconfirmed in July 2025.
13. On 19 August 2025, the mother sent a text message to the father advising she was relocating to Sydney.
14. On 3 September 2025, the father filed his initiating application seeking a recovery order to have X return to Melbourne.
15. The matter came before the SJR on 2 October 2025, who made the orders the subject of this application for review.
16. The mother returned to Melbourne shortly thereafter with X. The mother says she is staying with a friend, Ms D, and her two children, in the suburb of Suburb E.

1. This matter was conducted via Webex, and being an interim hearing, it proceeded on submissions.
2. The mother who was self-represented had filed numerous affidavits which were not in compliance with the Rules of the Federal Circuit and Family Court (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth). This included three affidavits of her own, one being 107 pages long. Nonetheless, I permitted her to rely on those affidavits, subject to the requirement that she direct me to any specific parts of those affidavits which were pertinent to this application. I explained to the mother that it was simply not possible to digest all of this information, and, nor was there time for the mother to address me on every aspect of that material.
3. The mother's proposal varied throughout the hearing. Initially she sought that current orders for time remain in place if she was allowed to move back to New South Wales however by the end of the hearing she said that ideally time be suspended between X and the father pending the child impact report which is to take place in January 2026.
4. The father sought that the mother's application for review be dismissed.

1. Pursuant to section 60CA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ("the Act"), the best interests of a child are the paramount consideration for the court when making a parenting order. This includes cases which are commonly referred to as 'relocation cases'.
2. Various authorities including AMS v AIF [1999] HCA 26, A & A: Relocation Approach [2000] FamCA 751; and U v U [2002] HCA 36 have discussed the matters to be taken into consideration in relocation matters including:

(a) The best interests of the children are the paramount, but not the sole consideration;

(b) The question of whether there should be a relocation cannot be treated as a separate issue to the best interests of the child;

(c) Neither party bears an onus to establish that an order permitting or restraining relocation is in the children's best interests;

(d) The person seeking to move does not need to provide compelling reasons for the relocation sought; and

(e) The court must weigh the advantages and disadvantages of the competing proposals.

1. Furthermore, the court must at all times be mindful of a person's right to freedom of movement. I note the observations of the Full Court in Adamson & Adamson [2014] FamCAFC 232 at [66]:

These rights, and the right of freedom of mobility of a parent, only defer to the paramount consideration of a child's best interests where those interests would be so adversely affected as to justify such interference; and then the interference is legitimate only to the extent that it is necessary to avoid such adverse effects.

1. Section 60CC(2) of the Act specifies six matters which must be considered in determining what is in the child's best interests. These include:

(a) what arrangements would promote the safety (including safety from being subjected to, or exposed to, family violence, abuse, neglect, or other harm) of:

(i) the child; and

(ii) each person who has care of the child (whether or not a person has parental responsibility for the child);

(b) any views expressed by the child;

(c) the developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs of the child;

(d) the capacity of each person who has or is proposed to have parental responsibility for the child to provide for the child's developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs;

(e) the benefit to the child of being able to have a relationship with the child's parents, and other people who are significant to the child, where it is safe to do so;

(f) anything else that is relevant to the particular circumstances of the child.

1. The court must also consider, under section 60CC(2A) of the Act, as follows:

(a) any history of family violence, abuse or neglect involving the child or a person caring for the child (whether or not the person had parental responsibility for the child); and

(b) any family violence order that currently or has previously applied to a child, or a member of the child's family.

1. Section 60CG of the Act also requires a court to ensure that the order that is made does not expose a person to an unacceptable risk of family violence, and is consistent with any family violence order.
2. In regard to interim relocations the authorities are clear that the court should be hesitant to condone a unilateral relocation when a party ought to have brought an application to this court.
3. As expounded in Morgan & Miles [2007] FamCA 1230, determinations about relocation are best dealt with at a final hearing, where all the evidence can be tested. This is to avoid a situation where children are subject to multiple disruptions to where they live and go to school. Consequently, although a party need not provide a compelling reason for wanting to move, the reason for why a move should occur prior to a final hearing is relevant to the determination.
4. In this case, the mother and X are currently back in Melbourne, where X lived from about 2021 to 2025, being about four years of his short five-year life. Other than the first year of his life, he has only spent a few months in New South Wales, being from August to October of this year.
5. The mother says in her material that she needs to move back to New South Wales, as her family supports have now dissipated in Melbourne and due to financial strain.
6. The mother says she had to sell her house in August of this year to pay off her debts as a result of legal fees accumulating since the first set of proceedings in 2021, and because the father is now refusing to pay for X's school fees.
7. However, it is fair to say the crux of the mother's submissions was that she had been subjected to coercive and controlling behaviour, and other family violence by the father, and that it was necessary to move X to New South Wales for his protection. She now says her family have also had to move away because of the father's behaviours.

1. Being an interim hearing, the court is unable to make finds of fact where the evidence cannot be tested. The court must therefore necessarily, look to agreed facts and less contentious evidence, such as family reports, and material from the Department of Families, Fairness and Housing. The court must then do its best to assess the probability of risk to X, and the extent of that risk if it were to occur.
2. The mother asserts in her affidavit that she has suffered family violence at the hands of the father since 2021. I note she relies on incidents that predate the final orders, including an incident at a hospital where X was a patient, and an alleged breach of an IVO in mid-2023. Otherwise, she relies on an incident in September 2024 where the father was alleged to have acted aggressively at X's soccer game, an incident on 14 April 2025 where he threatened to withhold X, and an incident on 10 August 2025 where he allegedly made a cutthroat gesture towards the mother.
3. In assessing the veracity of that evidence, I note the following:

• Hospital records from the 2021 incident show the mother expressly stated she was not concerned about X's safety and permitted the father to take him for a walk[1];
  • The mother agreed to the father having an additional night with X from June 2024 notwithstanding the father had not completed a men's behavioural change course as ordered;
  • The mother facilitated unsupervised overnight time between the father and X until June 2025;
  • The mother proposed at the commencement of her submissions that if she were permitted to move back to New South Wales with X, the father could spend time with X as per the final orders, that is unsupervised time each alternate weekend; and
  • There was no mention of family violence in a letter sent by the solicitors for the mother on 31 January 2025 to the father ("the January 2025 letter") in which it was asserted that the mother needed to move for the following reasons:

1. Our client has secured a permanent job opportunity in Sydney, which will offer financial security for both her and [X]. 2. Since [X] has not yet started formal schooling, now presents an opportune moment for the move before his education begins. 3. The relocation is intended to be long-term, providing [X] with stability and continuity. 4. Our client has a strong support network in Sydney, including her mother, [Mrs Rollins], her sister, [Ms B], and other extended relatives who can play a significant role in assisting with [X]'s upbringing. 5. [X] has cousins and peers of a similar age in Sydney, which would contribute to his social and emotional well-being. 6. Remaining in Melbourne is no longer financially sustainable due to accumulating debts from legal expenses and the rising costs of living. Relocating back to New South Wales would allow our client to avoid paying rent initially, thereby allowing her to improve her financial position. 7. In the past eighteen (18) months, our client has experienced the loss of several family members in Melbourne, which has led to a reduced support system in Victoria as extended family members in Victoria have moved further away.[2]
2. Taking these matters into consideration, I do not accept the mother is truly concerned about X's safety in the father's care and there is otherwise no objective evidence on which to make such a finding.

1. X's views are yet to be independently established.
2. The mother asserts in her affidavit that since time increased to two nights in June 2024, X has been dysregulated, and "cries, screams, hides, refuses to sleep, and requires up to 72 hours or more to regain some level of regulation and shows aggression towards me".[3]
3. Despite the mother saying that X's dysregulated behaviour commenced in June 2024, she continued to facilitate the time between the father and X until June 2025 and again, she does not mention this behaviour in the January 2025 letter.
4. Further to this, until this review hearing, the mother's position was that the final orders should remain in place. Indeed, it appeared to be her position until almost the end of the interim hearing. The mother went as far as to state that her friend would pay for the flights. This only appeared to change at the conclusion of the hearing, when it was pointed out that this was inconsistent with her concerns for X's welfare.
5. I do not accept that the mother is genuinely concerned about how X is coping with time with the father.

1. The mother asserts that if she is made to stay in Melbourne then she will struggle to meet her financial needs and provide for X. As already stated, the mother says the previous proceedings led to her incurring significant debt, and that this came to a head in 2024 when the father announced he would not be able to pay half the kindergarten fees. The mother says she had to borrow from her mother, sister, and friends to meet her debts, and that by 2025 she had to sell her house because she could not pay the mortgage. She says she now has rent free accommodation in New South Wales, and a job which she can start in January 2026.
2. The difficulty I have with this argument is:

(1) Despite being in a dire financial situation, the mother paid back her mother $40,000, her sister $10,000, and various other amounts to her friends, as well as paying off her credit card;

(2) There is no evidence that either the mother's mother or her sister required the mother to pay back the funds at that time, given the mother would need funds to rehouse herself, she had care of X, and was unemployed;

(3) There were no particulars about the mother's friends or how much monies they had lent her;

(4) The mother conceded she has purchased a used luxury motor vehicle (albeit she says using only $20,000 of the sale proceeds of her sold property);

(5) The mother conceded she has not provided her bank statements to the father's solicitors as requested to corroborate the use of the sale proceeds;

(6) The contract of employment the mother annexes to her affidavit is dated February 2025 and there is no evidence this would still be available for the mother to start in January 2026, other than her word;

(7) The mother has provided no evidence of any attempts to find a similar job or any other employment in Victoria; and

(8) The mother provides no specifics about her rent-free accommodation in New South Wales in her affidavit , such as where it is and how long she is able to stay there.

1. I am unable to find on the available evidence that the mother is any worse off financially living in Melbourne compared to New South Wales. In particular, the mother has failed to account for the proceeds of sale of her property, and her purchase of a luxury motor vehicle sheds further doubt on her assertions about her financial situation. Furthermore, the mother said her friend would lend her money to pay for flights for X to spend time with the father in Victoria, which suggests she has other financial resources available to her.
2. The mother also says that much of the family support she had in Melbourne has now dissipated. It appears that some of those family members have passed away but she says others have allegedly distanced themselves due to the father's behaviour. In this regard the mother says "our family support in Melbourne has seriously diminished due to the false allegations [the father] had made during the 2021/2023 proceedings. Family members withdrew their support as they were scared to become entangled in these allegations. They were also afraid for their children".[4] She does not otherwise particularise what was alleged and why the family members are in fear for themselves and their children. Nor does she say what support they provided to her and how her life is impacted without it, other than briefly mentioning that her mother and sisters have helped her care for X.

ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF THE PARTIES PROPOSALS

1. Pursuant to the authorities, neither party bares the onus of showing that one particular location is in X's best interests. Accordingly, it is necessary for the court to weigh up each of the competing proposals.

1. The mother would be happier as she would be living where she says she wants to live;
2. The mother would have the support of her mother and sister;
3. The mother may have rent free accommodation although she provides no particulars;
4. The mother may have employment, although I am again not satisfied on the evidence; and
5. X would live in closer proximity to his cousins in the Sydney area.

1. X would be unlikely to be able to see his father on a fortnightly basis as there is no evidence either party could afford to facilitate this; and
2. X would undergo a fourth move, back to New South Wales, and if the father is successful at final hearing, would undergo a fifth move back to Victoria, all within about five or six years.

1. X would be able to see both his parents on a regular basis pending the final hearing; and
2. If the father is successful at final hearing X would not undergo any further moves and if the mother is successful just one further move.

1. The mother is likely to be unhappy;
2. The mother would be living away from her mother and her sister;
3. X would be living away from his cousins who live in the Sydney area; and
4. The mother and X may have to stay living in cramped accommodation in Melbourne with the mother's friend pending the final hearing, although, the mother has not satisfactorily accounted for the sale proceeds of her property, so on this basis, appears to have funds to pay rent.

1. Taking into account all of these matters, I determine that it is in X's best interests to remain living in Melbourne, Victoria pending a final hearing of this matter.
2. X has already experienced three significant moves in his short life. These have all come about due to unilateral moves by the mother, and both primarily so the mother could be closer to family supports, and for financial reasons. The mother now asserts family violence as the primary issue. I have already rejected this on the available evidence at this interim hearing. This creates reason to be concerned about the mother's bona fides. In this regard I note the mother now says that she believed that order 20 of the final orders gave her permission to relocate without the father's consent. Whilst the word relocate is mentioned in that order, it clearly related to the provision of information to the father. The mother's alleged interpretation is not only entirely inconsistent with the remainder of the orders, but is also contrary to her solicitors threat to instigate proceedings in the January 2025 letter. It is readily apparent the mother knew she needed the father's permission because she sought it, and it was not forthcoming.
3. Accordingly, the application for review will be dismissed. The effect of this is that the orders staying the orders for make-up time are reignited. I expect the mother to comply with those orders.
4. I propose to list the matter for a compliance and readiness hearing at the earliest available hearing date.
5. I have noted that there will be liberty to apply to the court in the event anything arises from the child impact report after it is released to the parties.
6. For all the aforementioned reasons, I make the orders as set out at the commencement of this judgment.

I certify that the preceding seventy (70) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Dorrat.

[1] Mother's affidavit filed 7 October 2025 at annexure MSR-3 at p.61.

[2] Mother's affidavit filed 1 October 2025 at annexure [MSR-2].

[3] Affidavit of mother filed 24 October 2025 at [28].

[4] Affidavit of the mother dated 23 October 2025 at [9].