Knight & Redding [2025] FedCFamC2F 670 | Case summary

Knight & Redding [2025] FedCFamC2F 670 | Case summary | Zoe

[60]

Before the Court are the parties' competing applications for parenting orders with respect to the child X born in 2021 ('X'). X was aged approximately three and a half at the time of the trial.
The Applicant Mother, MS KNIGHT('the Mother'), was born in 1986 and at the time of the trial was aged 38. The Mother is a medical professional. At the time of the trial, she was engaged in paid employment on a part time basis, working three days per week and occasional Saturdays.
The Respondent Father, MR REDDING ('the Father'), was born in 1980 and at the time of the trial was aged 44. The Father works on a full-time basis as a sales professional.
The parties engaged in a brief dating relationship and did not cohabit or marry. Their relationship ended shortly after X's conception.
X has lived with the Mother since his birth. The Father has been actively involved throughout X's young life. X initially spent time with the Father at the Mother's home and has been spending time with him separately from the Mother since July 2022, when he was approximately seven months old.
At the time of the trial, pursuant to orders made on 9 October 2024, X was spending time with the Father from 3:00pm until 6:00pm each Wednesday and from 2:00pm on Friday until 5:00pm on Saturday each weekend. Overnight time commenced in early December 2024, when X was three years old.
X otherwise lives with the Mother and with the maternal grandparents (the Mother's mother and her stepfather, who she identifies as her father), who ordinarily reside in Canberra but have been in Adelaide, where both parties presently reside, to assist the Mother with X's care, since shortly after his birth.
The Father resides with his partner, MS D.
The primary issue in dispute between the parties relates to the Mother's desire to relocate to Canberra with X in order to pursue a work opportunity, and to continue to receive the support of her parents, whom she gave evidence will shortly resume their residence in Canberra.
X is an extremely fortunate child. Unlike many children whose parents engage in litigation before this court, X has two loving, competent, committed and child-focused parents and caring and supportive members of his extended family on both sides. He is, by all accounts, a delightful child who is developing in accordance with expected milestones. This is a credit to both of his parents, each of whom has shown a deep commitment to providing him with loving guidance and the best possible opportunities in life notwithstanding that the circumstances between them have made this challenging for them both. It is to be hoped that in considering these reasons, and in their future interactions with, and approach towards, one another, the parties each keep firmly in mind the critical role played by the other in enabling X to be the fortunate and much loved child that he is.

[61]

The Mother sought, in summary, that she have sole responsibility for decision-making with respect to major long-term issues pertaining to X and that X reside with her in Canberra and spend time with the Father for two weekends per month in Canberra and one weekend per month in Adelaide. She proposed that the time during each such weekend commence at 2:00pm on Friday to 4:00pm on Saturday and 8:00am to 2:00pm (or 1:00pm for the weekends in Adelaide) on Sunday; and build gradually to 3:00pm on Friday to 6:00pm (or 1:00pm for the weekends in Adelaide) on Sunday from January 2028 (at which time X will be six years old).
The Mother further proposed that X spend additional time with the Father during school holidays commencing in 2027 and building up to seven consecutive nights during each school term holiday period and a week about basis (subject to a provision allowing for suspension) during the long summer holidays from 2029.
In the event that X was required to remain living in Adelaide, the Mother proposed that time between the Father and X commence as 3:00pm to 6:00pm each Wednesday and 4:00pm Friday until 4:00pm Saturday three weekends out of four and build to overnight each alternate Wednesday and 4:00pm Friday to 4:00pm Sunday each alternate weekend (three nights per fortnight) from January 2027 (at which time X will be five years old).
The Father sought, in summary, that the parties have joint-decision making responsibility in relation to all major long-term issues in relation to X, and that X continue to reside in Adelaide, or, in the alternative, that any relocation be delayed until X reached the age of five.
In the event that the parties resided in the same state, the Father sought that X live with the Mother and spend time with the Father in an increasing regime commencing with a continuation of the extant arrangement and gradually building to an equal time arrangement commencing at the time X reaches five years of age.
In the event that the parties reside in different states, the Father proposed that X live with the Mother and spend time with him in week one of a four-week cycle, from 3:00pm on Friday until 3:00pm on Sunday in Adelaide; and in week three of a four-week cycle, from 3:00pm on Friday until 8:00am on Monday in Canberra; with school holiday time to be spent equally between the parties.

[75]

The Mother reported to Ms F that she had felt afraid for her safety in the year prior to the assessment as a result of conduct by the Father, and expressed concern that if he was unhappy with the outcome of the dispute, he may harm himself or someone else. She also gave evidence of times the Father had criticised her, such as by suggesting in a critical manner that she was suffering from mental ill health, and described the Father having engaged in dominant and controlling behaviours towards her. Controlling behaviour may fall within the definition of family violence in s 4AB of the Act, which is 'violent, threatening or other behaviour by a person that coerces or controls a member of the person's family (the family member), or causes the family member to be fearful.'
The Father acknowledged having held concerns about the Mother's mental health shortly after X's birth, which he linked to his experience of the Mother's conduct towards him having changed (though he did not assert any current mental health concerns), but denied having engaged in any conduct constituting family violence. He gave evidence of having tried but failed to understand the basis for any suggestion that he posed a risk.
I accept that the Mother may well genuinely have perceived at times that the Father was behaving in a controlling manner and that she was genuine in expressing concerns for her safety. However, a finding as to the exertion of control or the existence of family violence requires more than simply acceptance of the perception of such on the part of the person to whom the impugned behaviour was directed.[5]
The evidence before the Court does not support a finding that the Father behaved towards the Mother at any time in a manner which could objectively be assessed as controlling or that he otherwise represents a risk to the safety of the Mother, himself or any other person. The evidence before the Court, insofar as it demonstrates interactions between the parties, is of polite and respectful communications on the part of the Father, and of him respecting what he understood to be the Mother's wishes and boundaries with respect to the extent of their contact and communication.
In my view, it is likely that the Mother's perception of the Father's conduct arose from the level of distrust between them and their lack of meaningful communication, both of which are discussed in greater detail later in these reasons, together with the Mother's experience of feeling constrained by the Father with respect to her desire to relocate. In any event, the manner in which the Mother presented her case did not ultimately invite a finding that the Father posed a risk to her safety.
It was submitted on behalf of the Mother that a significant consideration in this proceeding related to her emotional safety. The Mother's case in this regard was not that her emotional safety was at risk from the Father, but that her emotional wellbeing would be imperilled if she was required to remain in Adelaide contrary to her wishes.
The Mother was clear in her evidence, and I accept, that she would not move from Adelaide without X. As a consequence, an order requiring X to remain living in Adelaide would have the effect that the Mother, who is presently, and who, at least on her case, will always be, his primary caregiver, would also be required to remain in Adelaide.
The asserted risk to the Mother's emotional safety arising from a refusal of her application to relocate was based on the dual factors of loss of a valuable employment opportunity that has been made available to her and loss of family support arising from the impending return of her parents to Canberra.

[76]

The Mother's evidence was that in mid-2023, she had been offered a position as medical professional at G Clinic which is located in Canberra. This was described by the Mother as her 'dream job' and a 'once in a lifetime opportunity,' which would represent a significant career advancement, enhanced job satisfaction and a culmination of the hard work she had put into her career throughout her adult life. The Mother's evidence was that the role would also provide significantly greater remuneration than her current role, estimated by her as being at least double her present income, whilst enabling her to continue to work three days per week at least in the short term.
The Mother gave evidence that the extensive training she has undertaken to date has been directed towards obtaining a leadership position and providing cutting edge care, being outcomes which would be made available to her by the acceptance of the position in Canberra. There can be no doubt that Mother is dedicated to and passionate about her career, which she enjoys and finds professionally rewarding, and that it is an important part of her identity.
A subpoena issued to G Clinic resulted in a response to the effect that they had no records of any job offer having been made to the Mother. It was put to the Mother that she had not in fact received a job offer from G Clinic. Her evidence was that she had received an offer and a proposed contract from Ms H, who is the present Director of G Clinic, through an entity known as H Company.
The evidence before the Court included a bundle of documents representing the extent of the written communications the Mother had received with respect to her job offer.[6] It was put to her that she had not in fact been offered a directorship, but merely a training position as consultant on a 'fee for service' basis, and not with G Clinic but with H Company. I accept the submission made on behalf of the Mother that nothing turns on the issue of whether the offer was from G Clinic or H Company in circumstances in which the Mother frankly admitted that she was unsure of the precise structure of the relevant entities.
The Mother accepted that the proposed service agreement she had received did not formally list her as a director, and that the sole reference to directorship in the written communications was a mention of a 'directorship in training' in a letter from Mr J, business manager for H Company. She gave credible evidence, however, that the verbal communication she had had were to the effect that the training would be undertaken with a view to taking over the directorship presently held by Ms H upon Ms H's impending retirement, and that there was a high degree of certainty that the training position would culminate in directorship.
The Father urged the Court to interpret the available documents as indicating that the Mother had proactively sought out a position in Canberra rather than having it offered to her. I do not agree that the documents demonstrate with any clarity whether the Mother expressed an interest in the opportunity in Canberra unprompted or whether she did so in response to a suggestion from another. In my view, it matters little. What is important is the current status of the opportunity available to the Mother.
I accept the submission made on behalf of the Father to the effect that the Mother's evidence with respect to her job opportunity, including the details of the formal arrangements that would be made, her likely work routine and the calculations of her anticipated remuneration, was lacking in particularity and was in part speculative and conclusory, which limits the weight that can be given to that evidence. I also accept the submission of Counsel for the Father that the Mother's failure to call evidence from Ms H or Mr J with respect to the discussions she had had with them resulted in a lacuna in the evidence with respect to the details of her job opportunity.
However, I also accept the submission made on behalf of the Mother that her evidence of discussions she had with trusted mentors and the understanding she had gained from such discussions was sufficiently reliable to support a finding that the Mother has available to her the career opportunity described by her, at least in a general sense.
It was suggested on behalf of the Father that the Mother's career options were not restricted to Canberra and there were opportunities for her to pursue in Adelaide, though the Father appropriately acknowledged that this was a matter outside his personal knowledge. It was put to the Mother that there would be plenty of time during the coming years of her career for other opportunities to arise without the need for her to relocate, particularly in light of evidence she had given about the limited number of professionals in Australia with her particular skills and qualifications, and the high regard in which she was held. She did not agree. Her evidence, based on her personal experience of having worked in her field for a number of years, was that such opportunities rarely arise.
It was also submitted on behalf of the Father that the Mother could increase her income substantially by working more days once X became older, and that she had secure employment in Adelaide in a type of work which she found rewarding. It was submitted that the Mother could continue to build her career without moving from Adelaide. Whilst this may be technically accurate, the Father did not establish that the Mother's career advancement in Adelaide would or could be equivalent to the opportunity presently available to her in Canberra, and in any event, this suggestion did not accommodate the important consideration of the Mother's autonomy with respect to her life and career choices.
The Mother gave evidence that she was affiliated with K Organisation, and that both the clinic at which she is currently employed and G Clinic were K Organisation clinics. Her evidence was that once affiliated with one provider, it was difficult for someone with her subspecialty to shift to another, which limited the scope of her realistically available future opportunities to clinics associated with K Organisation. She accepted that she is not prohibited by a restraint of trade clause from attempting to transition to a role with one of the other major providers, but gave evidence that to do so would involve severing established ties with mentors and other connections and that such allegiances were important in her field. The suggestion that such roles could be available to the Mother was speculative.
The Mother gave evidence that the only realistic future opportunity in Adelaide comparable to that which was presently available in Canberra would not arise until the retirement of the director of the clinic at which she is presently employed, which she anticipated would not occur for at least a decade in circumstances in which the incumbent had assumed the role in mid- 2024.
There was no expert evidence before the Court with respect to the Mother's career prospects, which is a matter to which I have regard when considering this issue. The best available evidence is the Mother's own evidence.
The possibility of an arrangement whereby X remained living in Adelaide and the Mother commuted to Canberra in order to take up the employment opportunity was floated with the Mother in cross-examination, noting in particular that it is the Mother's intention to continue to work on a part time basis if she is able to take up the employment opportunity in Canberra. She credibly explained that a 'fly in, fly out' arrangement would not be suited to the demands of patient care including the need to be available in case of emergencies and to cover for unscheduled unavailability of colleagues as well as to undertake associated tasks such as networking to establish her professional reputation in Canberra. This possibility also did not cater for changes in the Mother's work days and hours in future, such as when X commences school.
The Mother's evidence was that if she was unable to take up the position at G Clinic in Canberra, she anticipated experiencing a complete loss of motivation which would have a deleterious impact on her ongoing career promotion and development and would compromise her capacity to perform her role.
The Mother described feeling that taking the opportunity to fill a service gap in Canberra represented performance of a civic duty. She accepted that she did not feel compelled to perform that duty in other locations where similar services were unavailable, but nor did she assert that the feeling of civic duty was her sole or primary motivator in seeking to move to Canberra.

[77]

Canberra is the city in which the Mother grew up and is where the maternal grandparents ordinarily reside (albeit they have primarily been in Adelaide since X was born). The Mother also has a number of other family members and long-term friends in Canberra. Although she also has friends in Adelaide, I am satisfied that, subject to the location of her parents, Canberra is the location of the Mother's main support network.
The maternal grandparents came to Adelaide from Canberra to support the Mother after X's birth and are plainly a very significant support to her and X, both in terms of practical day to day support with managing the demands of parenting a toddler together with the Mother's demanding work commitments (noting that her work is of a nature where it is not possible to leave early on short notice in the event of illness or other unexpected event involving a child), and in terms of emotional support.
The Mother gave evidence that the maternal grandparents intended to return to Canberra shortly after the conclusion of the court proceedings, which would leave her without their significant support. Her evidence was that their time in Adelaide had always been intended to be temporary. The Mother gave unchallenged evidence that her stepfather's brother, with whom he was very close, had been diagnosed with an illness shortly prior to the trial and was gravely ill, which had added to the need for her parents to return to Canberra in the near future.
To Ms F, the Mother expressed concern that she would be unable to manage what she is currently managing without the support of her parents, noting the demanding nature of her work (which includes heavy emotional demands). She gave evidence of a likely need to reduce the days she works if she did not have the day-to-day support of her parents, which could impact on her career development. She credibly denied that her passion for her career would preclude her from reducing her work hours, explaining the importance of recognising and acting upon any inability to fulfil her duties to an acceptable standard.
The Mother accepted that she had managed the care of X during the six or seven occasions per year when her parents had travelled back to Canberra for periods ranging from a few days to a week since they have been staying with her. She also accepted that the need for backup carers would reduce as X commences kindergarten in 2026 and then school in 2027, but emphasised that her parents provide her with emotional as well as physical support.
The Mother told Dr E, upon whose psychological assessment she relied, that if she was unable to relocate but lost the support of her parents, the likely consequential reduction in her work days might lead to the need to downsize her home due to inability to afford her mortgage repayments.
However, she accepted under cross-examination that she presently holds funds in an offset account with a sufficient balance to discharge the mortgage liability encumbering her home, and it is from the funds held in the offset account that the mortgage repayments are presently met. It is therefore clear that a reduction in work hours would not lead directly to a need to sell her home. Dr E gave evidence that this factor had not weighed as heavily in her assessment of the emotional impact on the Mother if her parents returned to Canberra as the other factors she had considered.
The Mother accepted that her current income enables her to provide herself and X with a comfortable standard of living, with a surplus of income over expenditure, even without consideration of the child support paid by the Father, which could be expected to increase if the Mother's income was reduced. She also accepted that she could still meet her living expenses if she was working two days each week rather than three, and that the need for reduced working days would be obviated upon X's commencement at school in 2027.
It cannot, therefore, be concluded that either the reduction in available family support or the need to forego the employment opportunity in Canberra with its enhanced remunerative benefits would cause the Mother (or X) to need to move house or to suffer financial detriment.
The Mother did not call either of her parents to give evidence and provided no proper explanation for her failure to do so. Counsel for the Father sought that the Court draw an inference that if the Mother's relocation application were refused, her parents would remain in Adelaide and continue to support her as they had done since X's birth. It was submitted on behalf of the Mother that evidence from her parents was not required, and that the evidence of the Mother herself, together with the independent documentary evidence before the Court, was sufficient to establish that they would be returning to Canberra.
The Mother rejected the proposition that her parents would stay in Adelaide and continue to support her if they perceived that she continued to require their assistance and gave credible (albeit hearsay) evidence that her parents would be returning to Canberra. She emphasised that they had already made significant personal sacrifices in order to support her, that her uncle was very unwell, that they had other children and grandchildren in Canberra, and that they needed to return to Canberra to resume their lives there.
It was submitted on behalf of the Mother that the Notice to Admit filed by her on 17 April 2025, and the various documents annexed thereto (the authenticity of which was not disputed), demonstrated clearly that the Mother's parents had always intended to return to Canberra. Those documents demonstrate that they remain enrolled on the electoral roll in Canberra, their address remains their home address in Canberra for the purposes of the Australian Taxation Office, and they continue to receive their mail there (subject to a redirection to the Mother's address in Adelaide). I accept that these documents demonstrate that the maternal grandparents' presence in Adelaide was not intended by them to be a permanent move. They do not, however, address the imminence of their return to Canberra.
The rule in Jones v Dunkel[7] enables the Court to draw an inference arising from the unexplained failure of a party to call a person to give evidence with respect to an issue, that the uncalled evidence would not have assisted the party's case. It does not enable the Court to infer that any such evidence would have been unfavourable to the party's case and it cannot be used to fill evidentiary gaps. The rule does not require a party to call each and every person who might give evidence on a particular point,[8] and I am conscious of the cautions with respect to the use of the rule in parenting cases as outlined by the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia in Murdock & Madden.[9]
I am not prepared to infer, as sought by the Father, that the Mother's parents will remain in Adelaide if she is not permitted to relocate with X to Canberra. This is particularly so in light of my observations of the Mother herself as a truthful and reliable witness. I have regard, however, to the lack of evidence from the maternal grandparents, and the inability of Counsel for the Father to cross-examine them about their intentions, and also decline to find that they will move back to Canberra immediately upon the conclusion of the proceedings irrespective of their outcome.
In my view, the most likely available inference arising from the evidence before the Court is that the maternal grandparents will return to Canberra at some stage in the future, but that they have yet to make firm plans or arrangements to do so, and the outcome of the proceedings will be likely be relevant to the decisions made by them in this regard.
The evidence does not exclude the possibility that the maternal grandparents would remain in Adelaide for a finite specified time if the Mother's relocation were permitted to take place at a specified later date rather than immediately (as proposed by the Father as an alternative position), albeit that they may well travel to Canberra more frequently or for longer periods than they have done in the past in light of the illness of the Mother's uncle. The Mother's failure to call the maternal grandparents to give evidence precludes the lack of certainty in this regard from being interpreted in her favour.
When interviewed by Ms F and at the time his affidavit evidence was filed, the Father appeared not to be fully cognisant of the importance to the Mother of her relationships with her family. This is perhaps unsurprising in circumstances in which the parties' relationship was of extremely limited duration and their interactions over the past few years have been limited to matters directly relevant to X and his day to day needs. To his credit, by the time he gave his oral evidence, having had the benefit of the reply material filed on behalf of the Mother and time for reflection, the Father had come to recognise and accept the importance of those relationships and accepted that his perception had not been accurate.
The Mother acknowledged that since X's birth, she had been able to travel interstate with him on approximately 16 occasions, that many such trips had been to Canberra, and that she had been able to do so freely without any obstruction from the Father, even when accommodating the travel had necessitated rearrangement of X's regular time with him. She accepted that she had been able to visit family and friends, and that they had visited her, and that as a consequence, X had built relationships with them.
The Father suggested to Ms F that he could provide the Mother with the support she would be missing if her parents returned to Canberra and that he would be there for anything she needed. It was also put to the Mother that if the Father spent additional time caring for X, which he is not only willing but eager to do, this would alleviate the impact of the absence of her parents on her ability to maintain her work hours.
I do not doubt that the Father was entirely genuine in extending such an offer and that he would willingly provide, and would indeed jump at the opportunity to provide, any practical support requested of him by the Mother with respect to X's care. It is clear, however, that the relationship between the parties is not such that the Father would be able to provide the Mother with emotional support or with any meaningful support beyond physical care of X.
In the witness box, Dr E confirmed her opinion that although it might go some way towards easing the problem, the Father being available to provide practical support would not overcome the impact on Mother's emotional wellbeing arising from lack of availability of her parents in circumstances in which he was not a source of emotional support for her. I accept that assessment.
Ms F opined, and I accept, that for all of his positive intentions, the Father cannot offer the support the Mother needs to continue to offer the high level care she has been providing to X and also continue her work. In the witness box, she explained that the Father would not be able to provide the reassurance the Mother needed for her emotional wellbeing or alleviate the pressures on her in circumstances in which the state of the relationship between the parties was not conducive to an easy exchange of information, did not allow for easy ad hoc arrangements, was characterised by a lack of trust, and involved the risk of conflict.
Furthermore, the evidence before the Court with respect to the Father's work commitments left some doubt as to the extent to which he could be available without prior notice in the event that X needed to be picked up from childcare or immediately required care on short notice, while the ability of the maternal grandparents to do so was identified as a factor in the emotional wellbeing derived by the Mother from the support provided by her parents.
The Mother eschewed the suggestion that the emotional support she receives from her parents could be obtained by way of Facetime or other communication methods and emphasised the importance of physically being with them. She also disagreed with the suggestion that she could obtain the requisite level of support by way of regular travel to Canberra if she remained in Adelaide. Dr E likewise indicated that whether regular travel to Canberra would be positive for the Mother's emotional wellbeing depended on where her parents were, as she 'needs to be where her family is in an ongoing way.' I accept that there is a qualitative difference between regular communication and visits and consistent physical presence when it comes to emotional support of the type received by the Mother from her parents.
Dr E, who undertook a psychological assessment of the Mother, emphasised the importance of the ability the Mother has had to continue her training in the knowledge that her son is safely cared for by loving grandparents who can provide regular backup if necessary. She explained that that knowing there is a contingency plan for X's care allows the Mother to focus on her work, which she is often unable to leave on short notice.
I accept that the combination of physical and emotional availability that has been provided by her parents to date has a value to the Mother that is greater than the sum of its parts, in that there is emotional security to be derived from the peace of mind that comes with being able to rely on persons with whom she shares a close and wholly trusting relationship when practical and physical assistance is required with X's care.
Counsel for the Father submitted, and I accept, that as X grows older, he will commence school and will spend increased time with the Father, with the result that the burden on the Mother will decrease. However, the evidence does not support a conclusion that it will decrease to the point where the Mother will not require support in managing both her parenting commitments and the demands of her work.
The Father gave evidence, in the context of cross-examination with respect to his ability to travel to or move to Canberra, of the need for him to be available to his partner to support her with the care of any children they might have, and of the need for her to be close to her family and support network in such circumstances. The same considerations are relevant to the Mother and her need for support in the care of X.

[78]

It is not a matter of contention that the Mother does not presently suffer from mental ill-health and that she has functioned at a high level without mental health struggles during the time she has been living in Adelaide, which has been approximately 12 years, of which nine have been without her parents. Although the Mother had engaged psychologists, this had been for the purposes of self-care and stress management rather than for management of any mental health condition.
The Mother attended upon psychologist Ms L commencing in February 2024, which coincided with the commencement of the proceedings. She credibly denied that she had commenced this engagement strategically for the purpose of gathering evidence for use in the proceedings, and gave evidence that she had previously engaged with a different psychologist. The Mother's evidence, which I accept, was that the primary focus of her engagement with Ms L had been the development of strategies for coping with things that were outside her control.
The Mother's evidence was that being required to remain in Adelaide against her will would cause her considerable distress which would likely adversely impact her parenting. She also anticipated a significant psychological impact on her arising from an inability to pursue her career in the manner in which she seeks to do so, describing the prospect of loss of the opportunity in Canberra as 'disastrous.' She anticipated that her mental health could deteriorate to the point where she would need to reduce her work hours, even if the Father were available to take up more of the physical care of X.
To Ms F, the Mother expressed a concern that she may develop depression if she was unable to relocate. She described seeing a psychologist to manage the stress of her current situation but anticipated that it would be far worse if she was not able to move. The Mother reported that if she were unable to take up the career opportunity represented by the position in Canberra, she would feel that her autonomy and freedom had been taken from her, together with the many years of hard work that she has dedicated to building her career to this point. She described feeling trapped.
As already mentioned, the Mother relied on a report of clinical and forensic psychologist Dr E. Dr E was not a treating practitioner and was engaged solely by the Mother's solicitor rather than as a single expert. The Mother's evidence was that she had tried to obtain a report from her treating psychologist, Ms L, but Ms L had refused on the basis of the therapeutic nature of her engagement with the Mother, and had also recently retired.
No objection was taken to the Mother's reliance on Dr E's report, but it was submitted on behalf of the Father that Dr E was a 'barracker' on behalf of the Mother. Dr E accepted that she had taken at face value the matters she had been told by the Mother and those contained within the letter of instruction she had received from the Mother's solicitors, in relation to which the Father had no input. I have regard to that fact when assessing the contents of her report and her evidence. I do not, however, accept the submission that no weight can be placed on Dr E's evidence as a result of her unilateral engagement on behalf of the Mother. Dr E had no prior or ongoing professional relationship with the Mother and impressed as measured and as acting consistently with her professional obligations as an expert witness.
Dr E's opinion was that the Mother's emotional safety, well-being, and happiness would be supported by her being able to relocate to Canberra. She considered that the Mother would benefit psychologically from relocating so that she and X could continue to benefit from their regular practical and emotional support. She opined that having her family around her in Canberra, where she feels accepted and loved, would enable the Mother to thrive and flourish vocationally and personally as she moved forward with her career. She also considered that moving to Canberra would allow the Mother to practise medicine 'safely and wholeheartedly.' In Dr E's opinion, relocating to Canberra would enable the Mother to be the happiest and most content she could be by allowing both the daily support of her parents and the ability to fully apply her specialist medical skills.
Dr E considered that being unable to relocate to Canberra would impact the Mother's wellbeing, which, in turn, would impact on X. She also foreshadowed a risk that preventing the Mother from relocating to Canberra could lead to the Mother resenting X, leading to a reduction in their emotional connection and attachment. She emphasised the importance of mothers' wellbeing for the wellbeing of their children in developmental psychology research, explaining that if the Mother were required to remain in Adelaide, she would be unhappy, X would feel this unhappiness in his exchanges with her, and their emotional connection would be diminished.
Dr E referred to the 'dual blow' to the Mother of the loss of family support and the job opportunity, and opined that it would impact the Mother psychologically. She considered it likely that the Mother would develop an adjustment disorder with depressed mood, with likely symptoms including low mood and feelings of hopelessness, which would likely become ossified into a general sense of malaise. Dr E opined that these symptoms could lead to the development of major depression in due course.
Dr E predicted that the impact of not being able to move to Canberra on the Mother's functioning, work performance, and parenting capacity could lead to the Mother developing a sense of pointlessness, powerlessness and hopelessness about her ongoing situation. In the witness box, she foreshadowed that although the Mother would very likely obtain help if she needed it and would likely be diligent in following recommendations as to treatment, the impact on her would be an ongoing problem for her.
Dr E's evidence was that if the Court was not satisfied that the Mother's parents would return to Canberra if she was unable to do so, this would assist the Mother but would not resolve the issue because the issue of progression of the Mother's career would not have been addressed. Although she accepted that it was possible that if lack of family support, being one of the two identified stressors, were resolved, it was less likely that the Mother would develop an adjustment disorder, she described this proposition as 'clutching at straws a little.'
The Mother gave evidence to the effect, and I accept, that the likely fallout of being unable to take up the employment opportunity in Canberra in terms of her emotional wellbeing would increase her need for emotional support from her parents, thus compounding the impact on her of the loss of that support.
Ms F opined that the Mother's emotional safety would be supported by her being able to relocate, which would ensure continued access to the support of her parents, allow her proximity to other family and friends, and allow her to pursue the career opportunity that has arisen for her. She considered the risk to the Mother's wellbeing, and indirectly to X, as his primary caregiver, if she was not able to take up the opportunity, to be significant. In the witness box, Ms F foreshadowed risks to the Mother's functioning if the application to relocate was refused.
Ms F's evidence was that in the context of maternal unhappiness, or worse, depression, there was a host of risk factors for a child's functioning, including risks to their development; risks to their social and emotional functioning; risks that they could become withdrawn, inattentive, irritable, or reactive; risks that the level of sensitivity and consistency they received in caregiving could be compromised; risks that the child themselves could show signs of anxiety or internalising behaviours, or have difficulty with forming or maintaining friendships or peer interactions; risks of cognitive impacts; and risks of impacts on their educational attainment. Although she accepted that the availability and attentiveness of the Father was a protective factor, her opinion remained that X would be at risk of these identified adverse outcomes if the Mother were unable to move with him to Canberra.
I am satisfied that the Mother's emotional safety, and as a consequence, X's, would best be promoted by being able to reside in Canberra.

[82]

The Mother presented to Ms F as a considered, calm, child-focused parent, who was knowledgeable, reflective and sensitive. Ms F held no concerns about her capacity to meet X's needs. This accords with my own observation of the Mother when she gave her evidence.
Ms F described the Father having presented as a loving and committed father who wants only the best for X and to be involved in his life and support his development. She also assessed him as knowledgeable about X and sensitive to his needs, and as committed to his role as X's father. Again, Ms F's observation was consistent with my own.
It was submitted on behalf of the Mother that the Father was and had always been fixated on the issue of the time he spent with X, and was focused on numbers or quantity, rather than quality, in terms of the amount of time he and X spend together. In particular, it was submitted that the Father was fixated on ultimately achieving an outcome of equal time, considered by him to be an entitlement. It was further submitted that he was angry and hostile towards the Mother for his failure to achieve his desired outcome.
It is plain that the Father has consistently longed for more time with X, that he has been acutely aware of the precise amount of time they spend together, and that he has long hoped for an ultimate outcome of equal time. However, in my view, this is not a case in which the Father is fixated on achieving a predetermined outcome out of self-interest or a sense of entitlement without proper regard to X's interests or lived experience. Rather, it is the Father's genuine view that X's best interests would be served by increases in the amount of time they spend together, ultimately culminating in an equal shared arrangement, in light of the close and loving nature of their relationship.
In particular, the Father is to be commended for the patient, careful and child-focused approach adopted by him as reflected in his agreement to incremental and developmentally appropriate steps in conjunction with the assistance of Ms C, a clinical psychologist jointly engaged by the parties to undertake family therapy, notwithstanding his own longing for significantly more time with X.
The Father's willingness and ability to put X's needs ahead of his own desire with respect to time with him is reflected in the fact that he has accommodated the Mother travelling interstate with X on numerous occasions notwithstanding disruption to the routine for X's time with him. It was also demonstrated when, in March 2025, when X had been sick, he agreed to the Mother's request that he return to her overnight during what would otherwise have been overnight time in the care of the Father.
In addition, far from being solely fixated on time, the records of communications between the parties demonstrate that the Father has been actively engaged and interested in a very wide range of topics pertaining to X's development and wellbeing. Furthermore, those communications indicate that the Father's approach towards the Mother is calm, polite and respectful, not angry and hostile. I do not accept the submission that the evidence supports a conclusion that the polite communications consistently engaged in by the Father masked resentment towards the Mother.
The parties each acknowledged aspects of the parenting capacity of the other. For example, to Ms F, the Mother acknowledged the Father's willingness to provide her with practical support, while the Father indicated that he did not hold concerns about the Mother's capacity to meet X's needs. In the witness box, the Mother confirmed that she made no criticism of the care provided by the Father to X and that X was well settled in the Father's care in the current arrangement.
The Mother told Ms F that she was committed to ensuring that X had a relationship with his father, and that she took her responsibility to facilitate this seriously. She also expressed recognition of the importance of X's relationships with his father and extended paternal family members as being part of his identity and sense of self.
The Mother described making efforts to ensure that she was always positive and encouraging and exhibited recognition of the risks to X of doing otherwise. She expressed to Ms F an intention to do all she could to support X's relationship with the Father if she were permitted to relocate, including facilitating travel. In the witness box, she presented as cognisant of the challenges for X's relationship with the Father inherent in her proposal and as genuine in her commitment to minimising the impact of those challenges.
The Father alleged to Ms F that the Mother was 'hellbent' on limiting his relationship with X, and that her desire to relocate was a 'by product' of this. He suggested to Ms F that the Mother did not genuinely want to move to Canberra and was seeking to do so in order to maintain primary care of X. In the witness box, the Father moderated this position somewhat, accepting that the Mother's perspective was that her reasons for her proposed move were valid but expressing a view that the Mother had 'convinced herself' of this, and confirming his disagreement with her perspective on the basis that the sacrifice in terms of X's interests was too great.
The Father relied on the fact that the Mother had been living in Adelaide since January 2013, some 12 years prior to the trial, when she was 26 years of age. He emphasised that she had forged her entire career in Adelaide, commencing with her internship, had undertaken significant and careful work geared towards securing and undertaking specialist medical training in Adelaide, and had aligned herself professionally with an organisation she knew to have a clinic in Adelaide but which had not, to her knowledge, had a presence in Canberra.
The Father also pointed to comments he said the Mother had made to him which were indicative of an intention to continue to reside in Adelaide in the long term, including a reference to having found her 'dream home.' The Father gave evidence in the witness box that the Mother had spoken to him about her aim of rising up the ranks within the clinic at which she currently works in Adelaide, though he conceded that such discussions had taken place in 2021, at a time when she had had no knowledge of the existence of the opportunity she now wishes to pursue.
The Mother denied that she had evinced an intention to remain in Adelaide permanently. Her evidence was that she had lived in Adelaide for the purpose of completing her specialist medical training and that her subspeciality training, (which she has now completed save for the requirement to complete written and oral exams), had not been available in Canberra, and could only realistically have been undertaken by her in Adelaide, where her established contacts and mentors were based.
The Mother's evidence was that she had indicated to the Father on a number of occasions commencing prior to X's birth that there would be a potential need for her to move interstate for a period of six to 12 months for the purpose of training (being a proposition with which the Father agreed), but she acknowledged that she had not raised the prospect of a permanent move with him prior to the G Clinic directorship opportunity having arisen.
In my view, little turns on the issue of intentions previously held by the Mother. As Ms F observed, having a child is a life changing event. This, together with the more recent development of the emergence of the career opportunity that has been made available to the Mother, mean that it cannot be inferred that any previous representations as to an intention to reside in Adelaide in the long term are suggestive of any lack of genuineness or ill intent on the part of the Mother with respect to her present desire to relocate.
It was put to the Mother that she had actively pursued the job opportunity in Canberra, with the intention of putting distance between the Father and X and minimising the role the Father could play in X's day-to-day life. She credibly denied that allegation.
The Father relied on a number of examples of occasions upon which he considered the Mother had acted to exclude him from involvement in X's life or had demonstrated that she did not value his role as X's father. These instances formed the basis of a submission that the risk posed to the maintenance of the relationship between X and his father in the context of the tyranny of distance, where X and the Father would be wholly reliant on the Mother communicating with the Father, was simply too great. Those examples included the following:

[83]

(a) Following X's birth, the Mother resisted him being given the Father's surname or a hyphenated surname including the Father's surname. This ultimately resulted in tribunal proceedings after the Mother registered X's surname as her own surname and Births, Deaths and Marriages subsequently amended the registration to be a hyphenated surname, which change was challenged by the Mother. I accept the Mother's evidence that she registered X's name prior to agreement having been reached in order to avoid a fine and to obtain Medicare coverage for him, and not because she simply felt entitled to act unilaterally with respect to issues relating to X or because she considered X to be her child alone. I also accept her evidence that she has since come to accept the decision made by the tribunal to retain the hyphenated surname. However, it remains the case that she actively resisted the inclusion of the Father's surname for X other than as a middle name.

(b) The Mother enrolled X in childcare using her surname despite having been on notice that Births, Deaths and Marriages had registered his name with a hyphenated surname at the time she did so.[10]

(c) The Mother did not advise the Father of the name of the childcare centre attended by X until April 2024,[11] and even then refused to provide details of X's attendance there, despite X having commenced attending childcare two years earlier in April 2022 and despite multiple enquiries having been made through the parties' respective lawyers from as early as February 2022 about childcare specifically and X's routine and care arrangements more generally.[12] I accept the submission made on behalf of the Father that the Mother was evasive in relation to the Father's queries concerning this issue.

(d) The Mother did not include the Father's name or contact details on X's childcare enrolment form, nor on a child profile form completed at the time of his enrolment, which she acknowledged gave the impression that he did not exist.[13]

(e) At around the time the Father was eventually given the details of the childcare centre, the Mother raised with the managing director of the centre a concern about the potential for the Father attending to collect X, following which an action plan was developed to cater to such a contingency. In this context, the Mother provided the childcare centre with a photograph she had taken of the Father during a Facetime call with X without his consent.[14] This was despite the Father not having removed or attempted to remove X from the care of the Mother or any third party at any time in the past, nor having threatened to do so.

(f) Between September 2023 and February 2025, the Mother and the maternal grandmother each signed a number of 'incident, injury, trauma and illness' records at the childcare centre upon which X's surname was recorded as being the Mother's surname,[15] which suggested that the childcare centre still had X's surname recorded as that surname despite the registration of his hyphenated surname. The Mother's evidence in this regard was that she had not checked the records carefully before signing them at pick up, but had informed the childcare centre of X's correct surname when his updated birth certificate had been issued in October 2022. The Father accepted that documents produced by the childcare centre pursuant to a subpoena supported this evidence.

(g) In November 2022 and September 2023, the Mother provided the childcare centre with medical certificates in X's name on which the Mother's surname was recorded as his surname. The Mother credibly denied having maintained his details at the medical clinic with her surname, and indicated that she had provided the clinic with the updated Medicare card showing X's correct surname once it had been issued. The Father accepted that documents produced by the childcare centre pursuant to subpoena indicated that the Mother had provided the centre with certificates of immunisation upon which X's surname was correctly recorded.

(h) In October 2022, when X suffered the first of what would be a number of medical episodes and was taken to hospital by ambulance and admitted, the Mother did not inform the Father for a period of four days. The Mother's evidence was that her priority had been caring for X, and that she had considered that this important information should be conveyed to the Father in person and she had advised him and given him a pamphlet containing information about those medical episodes designed to be easily understandable for parents when she had next seen him at a handover.

(i) The Mother advised the Father of her relocation proposal by text message after the parties' first joint session with Ms C, rather than raising it during the session that day.

[85]

(a) A suggestion to wait and see how X was progressing before deciding whether he should return to the Mother's care overnight when he would otherwise have been in the care of the Father on an occasion in March 2025 when X was unwell (being an occasion upon which X was ultimately returned to the Mother's care overnight in accordance with her request).

(b) A request made in March 2023 for paperwork so that he could make his own enquiries with his private health insurer (with whom he maintains a policy for X in relation to which he has provided a card to the Mother for her use) as to their coverage of the cost of a sleep study prior to providing payment for half of the cost directly to the Mother. This was characterised by the Mother as a refusal to contribute, being a characterisation which was not borne out by record of the communications between the parties.[16]

(c) It was the Mother's perception that the Father had refused to accept a decision she had made to delay X's toilet training and that he had instead pressed her to adopt his chosen method. However, the communications between the parties[17] demonstrated that the Father had been eager to ensure that the parties were 'on the same page,' had readily agreed to follow the Mother's advice and replicate whatever arrangement the Mother felt was best, and had communicated this to her in a polite and respectful manner.

(d) This was part of a broader perception held by the Mother that the parties had been unable to agree on basic matters such as sleep, diet and toilet training and that the Father was critical of her and her parenting. She described a 'diametrically opposed approach to parenting.' Although I accept that the Mother was genuine in her perception in this regard, I also accept the submission made on behalf of the Father that this was not borne out as having been a reality by the evidence of the parties' communications before the Court, which demonstrate the Father having taken a respectful and conciliatory approach and having attempted to work with the Mother, rather than against her, with respect to such issues.

(e) The Mother was critical of the Father for having enrolled X in a nine-week sports program for toddlers which fell entirely during X's time with him. She described this as having been done unilaterally, yet the Father had given her approximately three weeks' notice prior to the commencement of the program, had invited her to attend, and had received no response from her for approximately three weeks. He had also immediately reassured her about the program's safety and suitability for toddlers once she had raised a concern.[18]

[87]

(a) Engagement in family therapy with the Father.

(b) The preparation of a positive and child-focused book for X to support him to feel comfortable with the commencement of overnight time with the Father. Ms F opined that this book would have been very helpful to X's adjustment to overnight time and that it reflected high level parenting.[19]

(c) Agreement to and facilitation of what has, for the most part, been frequent, regular and reliable time between X and his father, and increases thereto as X has developed (albeit that the time facilitated by the Mother has not been as much time as the Father would have preferred, and there was a gap of disputed duration in early 2022 when time did not occur, and a further extended period across 2023 and 2024 without increases). In this regard, the Mother relied on a list of occasions upon which she had facilitated time since X's birth,[20] which was largely, though not entirely, accepted by the Father as accurate. In this regard, the Father agreed that the time he had spent with X had enabled them to form a strong and loving bond despite never having lived together. Ms F opined that what the parties had been able to achieve in this regard was impressive in the circumstances. Although she described them as 'cautious,' Ms F confirmed that the arrangements that had been implemented for X had been developmentally appropriate.

(d) Facilitation both of changes to the arrangements and of make up time when either of the parties has been required to travel or has otherwise had other commitments which have interfered with the regular routine of time, including when changes were required by the Father, and when X was unwell (though the Father also gave evidence of times when such accommodations had not been made).

(e) Proposing an increase in time in line with the recommendations of the Family Report upon receipt of that report.

(f) Proposing an additional hour of time each week after orders were made by the Court on 9 October 2024.

(g) Actively facilitating over 150 Facetime sessions between X and the Father commencing when X was approximately 8 months of age and before he was able to talk, to facilitate the Father reading a bedtime story to X and interacting with him. This has plainly required significant active involvement and commitment by the Mother to facilitate. Notwithstanding some disagreements between the parties about occasional distractions and other hiccups, this demonstrates a significant commitment to assisting X to build his relationship with his father during times when they are not physically together.

(h) Communicating with the Father regularly and frequently with respect to a wide range of matters pertaining to X's health, development, medical appointments, day-to-day needs and other aspects of his care, including but not limited to detailed entries in a communication book previously used by the parties (though the Father's perception was that there were matters in relation to which updates were not consistently provided, particularly with respect to X's day-to-day care arrangements). When information was provided to the Father, he often responded in a manner that suggested that he was content with the information that had been provided, such as by thanking the Mother and not asking further questions. Although the Father's evidence was that he had often refrained from pressing the Mother for further information because he considered that to do so would be futile and he did not want to cause difficulties between them, he acknowledged it was reasonable for the Mother to have concluded from his responses that he was content with the information she had provided. The Father accepted that on occasions when he had asked for further information, the Mother had provided it.[21]

[90]

It is not in dispute that X loves and is dearly loved by both of his parents. It is evident that both parents are committed to promoting and enhancing his best interests and that the relationship he shares with each of them is close and loving.
Ms F observed the relationship between X and the Mother, who is and has always been his primary caregiver, to be strong and secure. She also observed that despite the challenging circumstances, including the fact that they had not been in a relationship at the time of his birth, the parties had done a good job in ensuring that X had been able to build a positive and loving attachment to his father.
The Mother acknowledged to Ms F, and I accept, that the Father has strengths to offer X, including role modelling as to motivation and determination and enjoyment of sport, being an activity they can engage in together.
Plainly, X will benefit from being able to continue to have a relationship with each of his parents.
It is also important that X be able to continue his relationships with his grandparents and extended family members on each side of his family, including the Father's partner (with whom the Father has been in a relationship for most of X's life), noting that the maternal grandparents in particular have been very actively involved in his care since his birth.
The Mother's case was that the relationship between X and the Father was sufficiently strong to withstand a move to Canberra. She emphasised that X was well used to engaging in Facetime communication with the Father, having done so weekly since he was an infant. Ms F expressed confidence that with the genuine efforts of both parents X could continue to have a positive relationship with his father if he were to move to Canberra.
It was submitted on behalf of the Father, and I accept, that a relocation would constrain the nature and extent of the child's experience of the Father and of the Father's parenting role, and the nature and depth of the connection between X and his father. I do not, however, consider that a move would prevent them from maintaining a close, loving and meaningful parent-child bond and relationship. Indeed, even if X moves to Canberra he will still, in future, spend more time in the care of the Father than he has done to date, and their current level of engagement has not prevented them from developing a close, loving and meaningful bond.
It was submitted on behalf of the Father, and I accept, that X's best interests will be served by both of his parents fulfilling a meaningful role in his life. I also accept, however, as submitted on behalf of the Mother, that a relationship between a parent and a child can be less than optimal, but still meaningful. Ms F opined, and I accept, that a relationship can be made strong and meaningful through quality time, attunement to a child's needs and a sensitive capacity to respond to those needs. Although there needs to be enough time to enable a parent to meet those needs, it is the quality of the time, rather than its quantity, which is important.
Ms F also opined that parent-child interactions via Facetime, although different in nature, could also be meaningful. She gave suggestions for how such interactions could be optimised to maintain the closeness of the parent-child bond, such as their use for jointly watching movies or playing games. Although Facetime interactions between X and the Father are currently brief in duration, Ms F confirmed that this was to be expected from a developmental perspective and that she would anticipate that their nature would change as X became older.

[92]

The parties do not presently have a strong coparenting relationship. Their communication is minimal, being limited to emails between them and correspondence between their solicitors, and they lack a mutually trusting relationship. In many respects, they engage in parallel parenting, rather than coparenting, and each knows little of X's experience with the other.
Ms F expressed a view that the Father has a tendency to view communications from the Mother through a lens of concern and dissatisfaction. In my observations, both parties exhibit this tendency towards the other. On a number of occasions during their oral evidence, the parties expressed dissatisfaction with communications from the other which, when viewed dispassionately, were unproblematic.
On the Parenting Alliance Measure administered by Ms F, the Mother's responses rated the parties' coparenting relationship as 'dysfunctional,' while the Father's responses rated the coparenting relationship as being at the bottom of the 'problematic' range, just above 'dysfunctional.' In the witness box, the Mother described the coparenting relationship as being 'in tatters.'
The Father, in particular, expressed distrust of the Mother (particularly in relation to her motivation in pursuing a relocation to Canberra), thus demonstrating their lack of coparenting alliance. The parties have each contributed to the lack of trust and open communication between them by failing to inform the other of significant matters. For example, the Mother failed to inform the Father of an episode in which X suffered a medical episode and was taken to hospital by ambulance until four days after the event; while the Father failed to inform the Mother that he was cohabiting with Ms D, and she did not learn of this until she read it in his affidavit approximately 20 months later. Unsurprisingly, the present litigation has not assisted with the strained nature of the parties' coparenting relationship.
However, both parents demonstrated insight into the likely deleterious impact of their lack of cooperation and open communication for X and expressed a willingness to work on improvement in this regard. The parties have previously engaged with Ms C over a period of approximately 16 months for the purpose of enabling them to implement developmentally appropriate care arrangements for X. The parties' attendance upon Ms C ceased while the parties litigated with respect of the relocation issue. Both indicated a willingness to re-engage with Ms C following the conclusion of the litigation, agreed to an order providing for that to occur and expressed a hope that the coparenting relationship could improve through that process.
It is to the credit of both of both of them that they have been willing to work together with professional assistance in X's interests. They have also largely been able to communicate in a polite, civil and child-focused manner, which is a positive factor. Despite their competing allegations, the evidence is replete with examples of both of them having actively communicated information about X to the other in order to promote and prioritise his interests.
The Mother's evidence was that being required to remain in Adelaide could cause her to hold resentment towards the Father which would worsen the state of their coparenting relationship. I accept that this is a likely eventuality.
The Mother expressed to Ms F that if the Father could support her to relocate this would allow for a 'reset' of the coparenting relationship, it would offer an 'olive branch.' I accept that this would likely have assisted with steps towards repair of the relationship between the parties.
However, it is important not to lose sight of the significant sacrifice the Mother was asking of the Father by making such a suggestion. For the Father, agreeing to X's move to Canberra would have meant agreeing to a reduction in the time they could spend together in future and limitations upon the opportunities for them to build and develop their relationship, which is an outcome which is not only deeply distressing to the Father himself, but which he genuinely does not believe to be likely to promote X's best interests. I accept the submission made on behalf of the Father that he should not be criticised for pursuing the outcome he genuinely considers will best serve X, and that it was not unreasonable for him to entrust the Court with a decision that lies so close to the heart of his relationship with X.
It is to be hoped that the Mother can come to appreciate the Father's perspective in relation to this issue and its basis, being his genuine love for and commitment to X, and that the prospects of repair and improvement in the parties' coparenting relationship will not have been damaged as a consequence of the Father's failure to consent to her proposed relocation.

[94]

The Father accepted that his job is largely conducted remotely, that there is flexibility in terms of his work diary, and that he had travelled to Canberra on a number of occasions in the past for work purposes. He gave evidence that the company by which he is employed now had staff in Canberra, which he anticipated would result in decreased travel to Canberra for him. He had not made any enquiries with his employer with respect to the prospect of arranging work-related trips to be coordinated with trips to Canberra to spend time with X, but did not consider that such a suggestion would likely be met with approval.
A letter from the Father's employer[22] confirmed that they recognised the importance of maintaining a healthy work-life balance for their employees, that their company policy allowed employees the flexibility to exercise their judgment in prioritising personal and family commitments over business-related travel or external events when necessary, and that their primary objective is to ensure that their employees could perform their duties effectively while also attending to their personal and family needs. The Father confirmed that he expected to be able to take two-half days away from work every four weeks in order to facilitate travel to Canberra in accordance with his alternative proposal.
The Father proposed, in the event that X was living in Canberra, that he spend time with him in Canberra one weekend in four (in addition to a weekend in Adelaide in the intervening fortnight). This was less than the amount of time being proposed by the Mother, which was two weekends per month in Canberra in addition to a monthly weekend in Adelaide. This was described by Senior Counsel for the Mother as 'reluctance' on the part of the Father to spending more than one weekend a month in Canberra. I do not accept that that is an accurate characterisation.
The Father explained, and I accept, that his alternative proposal did not reflect a view that it would be a satisfactory amount of time for he and X to spend together, but rather, reflected a careful assessment of what was likely to be practical and realistically achievable for himself and for X. The Father indicated that he did not wish to take up an amount of time that he would not be in a position to fulfil. This was both sensible and child-focused.
The Father gave evidence of factors which would limit his ability to spend significant time in Canberra on a regular basis, including the need to support his partner with any children they might have, the impracticability of travelling with any such children, the fact that he was currently engaged in a house renovation in Adelaide (the completion date for which was estimated by his partner to be late 2026), the need to assist his father by provision of employment to him in the context of the renovation, concerns about his parents' (his father's and stepmother's) health and the need to be around for them, and considerations relating to his partner's employment. These were all reasonable considerations.
Ms D's evidence, which I accept, was that her employment as a medical professional with a medical corporation (which employment is stable and enduring) involves set work commitments, that her contacts were in South Australia, and that her employer does not have work available in Canberra. However, she also gave evidence of some flexibility in her work commitments, which had enabled her to be available to spend time with X during the times he spent with the Father on weekdays most of the time and which she anticipated could be of assistance in supporting the Father if X were to spend increased time in his care.

[96]

Senior Counsel for the Mother emphasised the importance of the Mother's autonomy, freedom of movement and right to live where she chooses. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Kirby J in the High Court of Australia decision of AMS & AIF,[23] in which his Honour said:
1. ... One of the objects of modern family law statutes ... is to enable parties to a broken relationship to start a new life for themselves, to control their own future destinies and, where desired, to form new relationships, free from unnecessary interference from a former spouse or partner or from a court. Courts recognise that unwarranted interference in the life of a custodial parent may itself occasion bitterness towards the former spouse or partner which may be transmitted to the child or otherwise impinge on the happiness of the custodial (or residence) parent in a way likely to affect the welfare or best interests of the child. [citations omitted]
Senior Counsel for the Mother also placed reliance on the following passages from the judgment of Kirby J in U & U:[24]
1. The failure of a primary judge to give separate and full consideration to the true proposal of a mother, as designated primary carer and residence parent, to discharge her assigned responsibilities overseas, following her return to her family in India, therefore constitutes a serious injustice to the proper evaluation of that application. The burden of such injustices will ordinarily fall, as here, on the wife. It will be she, not the husband, who will usually be confined, in effect, in her personal movements, emotional environment, employment opportunities and chances of remarriage, repartnering and reparenting. Effectively, as here, it is she who will be controlled by court orders that require her to live, and make the most of her life, in physical proximity to the husband's whereabouts. In this way, inconvenience to the husband is minimised. But the effect on the wife may be profound.
2. As has been noted by this Court and courts in other jurisdictions, significant effects on the mother's emotional, residential, economic, employment and personal life have an inevitable impact on the happiness and best interests of the child.
3. Courts, exercising such discretions, should not ignore the disproportionate burden typically cast upon women by their being effectively immobilised as the custodial/residence parent. This is burden enough on a woman whose family, friends, employment and new life opportunities are all in Australia. But it is specially onerous for a woman, such as the wife in these proceedings, where all those links are with her homeland overseas. [citations omitted]
I accept that the Mother's freedom of movement and ability to pursue her chosen career path is an extremely important consideration in the circumstances of this case. I also accept that denying her the autonomy to make her own choices as to the location of her residence and her employment would be to deprive her of a freedom that is available to the Father as a consequence of her role as X's primary carer. Although this consideration must be subservient to X's best interests, it is bound up with those interests, as the Mother's happiness and stability are inextricably linked with X's wellbeing.

[101]

(a) There is a risk, as identified by the Father, that the currently poor state of the parties' coparenting relationship will impact upon the extent to which the relationship between X and the Father can be maintained and developed if they live in geographically distant locations.

(b) As Ms F identified, X moving to Canberra would (understandably) be distressing and challenging for the Father.

(c) As identified by the Father, the extent to which he will be able to be involved in X's day-to-day life and enjoy spontaneous interactions and day-to-day involvement with schooling and extra-curricular activities would be limited by distance.

(d) The proposal involves potential upheaval and disruption to X's existing routine including childcare (though it is noted that X's routine will change with the advent of kindergarten and then school in the coming years in any event).

(e) The proposal would involve X (as well as both of his parents) engaging in extensive travel on a regular basis.

(f) A relocation would reduce the amount of time X could spend with his extended paternal family, including the Father's partner, all of whom reside in Adelaide.

(g) The Father and his partner gave evidence of a hope and intention to start a family. If that occurs, the Mother's proposal would involve X being separated from such sibling or siblings for much of the time. Ms F gave evidence that sibling relationships were important lifelong relationships which could be less strong as a consequence of growing up without substantial time together and without opportunities for regular incidental engagement and interactions. However, she opined that there could still be scope for strengthening and building such relationships while living in different states.

(h) The time spent by X with the Father in Canberra would likely take place in temporary accommodation, which would involve a less natural and less well-equipped environment than the Father's home. It would also not involve X experiencing the Father's home life, which he would be able to do during all of his regular time with the Father if he continued to reside in Adelaide. Ms F agreed that it was not likely that X would identify such accommodation as a home and that there was a risk that over time, his eagerness to spend time in such an environment could wane, though she expressed a hope that meaningful interactions between X and the Father would outweigh any such negatives.

(i) There is a risk, as identified by Ms F, that at some stage X would wish that his parents lived in the same state and wish that things were easier, which might impact his overall happiness.

(j) Some of the limitations identified by the Mother with respect to her relationship with her own parents being conducted by means of visits and Facetime communication would also apply to X's relationship with his father, albeit that the context and circumstances are different.

[107]

The Father's alternative proposal was that the Mother's relocation with X be delayed until he reached the age of five, to enable them to develop and strengthen their relationship and form an entrenched pattern of overnight time prior to any move. It was submitted on behalf of the Father that if relocation were to occur, because of X's young age, his relationship with his father must first be given more time develop in order to avoid his attachment to and relationship with his father being negatively impacted and ameliorate the disadvantages for X of the Mother's proposal, as outlined above. There is considerable force in this submission.
Ms F opined that there could be benefits for X of increasing the time he spends with the Father prior to any move, including providing opportunities for more shared experiences to build on and develop their positive relationship. She expressed a view that there would be an advantage to delaying the proposed relocation, provided that it did not lead to the Mother's job opportunity being lost, as a delay would enable X to experience increased blocks of time and build up a 'bank of shared experience' and accessible memories with the Father prior to moving. A delay to a move will also enable X to experience a build-up of the quantity of time he spends with the Father free of the additional burdens and complications associated with distance and travel, thus optimising the prospects that the build-up will be a smooth and positive experience for him.
Ms F opined that a move occurring closer to age five than to X's current age would be preferable in this regard, provided that it did not compromise the Mother's mental health, but that it should occur prior to X commencing school so that he did not commence school and then need to change schools. She also recommended against both the relocation and the commencement of school occurring at the same time, opining that it would be in X's best interests to separate those events from one another.
Ms F also considered that a delay could have the additional benefit of enabling the parties to re-engage with Ms C and attempt to improve their communication prior to needing to navigate the additional complexities involved with distance and the facilitation of frequent travel.
Dr E accepted that if the Mother were permitted to relocate but not immediately, then assuming that the employment opportunity was not lost, this would resolve the issues of grief, loss and uncertainty which she had identified as being important to the state of the Mother's emotional wellbeing. In such circumstances, she did not consider the Mother's mental health would be compromised.
The Mother's evidence was that the opportunity had been on hold for a substantial period of time pending the resolution of these proceedings, and that Ms H had been very accommodating, but that Ms H wished to retire in the near future and the position would not be available indefinitely.
The Mother accepted that she was held in high regard in her field; that there was a shortage of appropriately qualified specialists in Canberra; that upon completion of her qualifications she would be one of only few practising specialists in her area of subspecialty in Australia, meaning that only a finite number of candidates would be suitable for the role she had been offered; and that it was difficult for clinics in Canberra to attract candidates with her qualifications. Indeed, as submitted on behalf of the Father, the Mother's own affidavit evidence was of skill shortages in her subspecialty in Canberra.
The Mother also accepted that Mr J had advised her in March 2025 that she was the only candidate being considered for the position with G Clinic. Mr J's correspondence indicated not just that the Mother was the preferred candidate but that there was 'no one else currently available with the expertise and qualifications to fulfil this role.' The Mother's evidence was also that she and Ms H had known and respected each other for a long period of time, which had led to the position being offered to her.
It was suggested to the Mother that in such circumstances, she would be in a strong position to negotiate an alternative start date, and that it was likely that the position in Canberra would remain open to her if she were able to accept it after a period of delay. Her evidence was that those with whom she had been communicating had been very accommodating so far, but she was not sure how long that would continue.
The Mother said that she had not had discussions with Ms H or Mr J about the possibility of relocating at a later date to take up the position. There was no evidence before the Court from either of them with respect to that issue. The fact that Ms H and Mr J have been so accommodating to date, in circumstances in which the expected date of finalisation of the proceedings has been unknown, supports an inference that they will likely also be patient with respect to the prospect of a known but not immediate start date for the Mother's residence in Canberra.
The Mother's evidence was that Ms H had been 'hoping' to hand over the medical directorship to her within three years from June/July 2023 (ie mid 2026), and that 'ideally' there would be a period of on the job training before that occurred. She deposed that it was possible that the offer would be extended but there were no guarantees.
Senior Counsel for the Mother appropriately conceded that the evidence did not support a finding that the Mother's employment opportunity would be lost if she did not take up the position immediately. Rather, it was submitted that there was a basis for a significant apprehension that delay would result in the opportunity being lost. Although I do not doubt that the Mother subjectively feels such an apprehension, I consider it more likely than not that if the Mother is permitted to move with X to Canberra at a known future date, the opportunity with G Clinic will remain available to her.
The Mother's failure to call evidence from the maternal grandparents had the result that they were not able to be questioned about their likely movements in the event that the Mother's proposed relocation was permitted but was delayed until a set future date. Indeed, the Mother's own evidence was not that her parents would be returning to Adelaide immediately, but that they were 'not able to stay in Adelaide in the long term,' that they would not remain in Adelaide 'indefinitely,' and that they were in Adelaide 'for the period required until [she was] hopefully able to return.' I acknowledge, however, that the Mother's unchallenged evidence with respect to her uncle's medical diagnosis added a temporal element of some imminence to what had otherwise been somewhat vague evidence of an intention to return at an unspecified future time.
In light of the considerable support they have provided to the Mother and X in the past and their clear love and commitment in this regard, I infer that it is likely that the maternal grandparents will either defer their return to Canberra during the period of any delay to the relocation or divide their time between Canberra and Adelaide in the intervening period so as to continue to provide extensive support to the Mother during the period of any known delay to her ability to move.
It was submitted on the Mother's behalf that any delay should be limited to the period prior to X's commencement at kindergarten (which is scheduled to occur in 2026), so that he would develop relationships with peers who might then proceed to school with him. I consider this prospect to be of considerably less significance to X's best interests than the opportunity to solidify and consolidate his relationship with the Father prior to his relocation.
Having regard to all of these considerations, I am not satisfied that there is any appreciable degree of urgency to the Mother's relocation proposal or any real risk that a delay of a defined and finite period would cause the loss of the opportunity that has become available to her. On balance, I am satisfied that X's best interests will be served by delaying the relocation until June 2026, which will be approximately 12 months after the making of the orders, and by which time X will be four and a half years of age.
Such timing will enable X to increase the time he spends with the Father and consolidate their relationship and shared experiences prior to the need for them to navigate a long distance relationship, whilst also ensuring that X is well settled in his new home and routine before he undertakes another significant change in the form of commencement of school in 2027. It will also enable both parties sufficient time to put in place appropriate arrangements to ensure that the transition is as easy and positive for X as possible, including but not limited to re-engagement with family therapy.

[110]

The Father gave evidence that in the event that the Mother's relocation application was successful, he hoped to build up the time X spent in his care prior to X's move to Canberra in order to ensure that the impact on X of moving to continuous blocks of time upon the relocation was minimised. As outlined above, Ms F opined that there could be benefits to this.
Ms F cautioned, however, against rushing the build-up of time, indicating that it was important to be developmentally cautious, and that it would be more difficult to go back and repair if things moved too quickly and caused anxiety for X than it would be to build up at a more careful rate in the first place.
Ms F recommended that there be some increase in time prior to a move to support the relationship once it transitioned to being long distance. The evidence before the Court suggests that the gradual build-up of time with the Father, including the introduction of overnight time, which has occurred to date has proceeded positively for X. It is imperative that this not be jeopardised.
Ms F suggested that as a short term measure pending a relocation, time with the Father could occur every weekend (noting that X is not yet at school and the Mother works part-time, so this would not deprive them of leisure time together). She suggested that such time be built up by the incorporation of a two-night block in one week and a single overnight the other week, followed by the introduction of a two-night block each week, before potentially then building to a three-night block to allow X to 'practise' prior to moving. I accept these recommendations as being in X's best interests, noting that they provide for a careful balance between the need for caution in moving too fast and the need to maximise the extent to which X's relationship with his father can be strengthened and consolidated prior to his move so as to reduce the impact of distance on their ongoing relationship.
The Father's proposal as at the conclusion of the trial involved X spending one overnight with him one weekend and two consecutive overnights the other weekend, together with a continuation of daytime time each Wednesday, from June 2025. From December 2025, the Father proposed two consecutive blocks of two overnights per week, together with an additional daytime-only visit once per fortnight.
The Father's proposal was more aligned with Ms F's recommendation than was that of the Mother, though it is acknowledged that the Mother's proposal with respect to immediate time between X and the Father was put as an alternative to relocation rather than as a pathway to build up to a relocation occurring at a later date and as such, was understandably not precisely crafted to achieve the pre-relocation consolidation of X's relationship with his father which I have found will best meet his interests. In my view, subject to one area of modification as discussed below, the regime proposed by the Father will meet X's needs with respect to building up their relationship prior to X's move while remaining developmentally cautious, and is therefore in X's best interests.
The orders will include a modification to the Father's proposal in order to adopt Ms F's recommendation that X be given the opportunity to 'practise' three-night blocks prior to moving. The orders will provide that X spend blocks of three consecutive nights with the Father from April 2026 (with the time in the intervening week becoming a single overnight, so that the total number of nights per fortnight remains at four). This will ensure that X's first experience of three-night blocks is in familiar surroundings so as to minimise any risk that he will not adjust well and to maximise the likelihood that he will associate such blocks with being a positive experience.

[111]

In the event that the parties resided in different cities, Ms F supported that Mother's proposal that X and the Father spend time together for three weekends each month, with X traveling for one of those weekends, though she noted that travel could be developmentally demanding.
The Father's proposal was that in the event that the parties resided in different cities, X spend time with him from 3:00pm on Friday until 3:00pm on Sunday in Adelaide in week one of a four-week cycle, and from 3:00pm on Friday until 8:00am on Monday in week three of a four-week cycle in Canberra.
As outlined earlier, the Father's proposal was based on a careful and child-focused assessment of what would likely be realistic and reasonably practicable in his circumstances. Ms F opined that it was important that X not be given an expectation that he would see his father at certain times if it was not consistently going to occur, and in that sense it was important that the regime put in place be realistic and achievable. The Father is to be commended for the careful consideration he had given to this issue in formulating his alternative proposal notwithstanding his own closely-held desire to maximise the time X spends with him.
I accept that upon the Mother's relocation, the time X will be able to spend with his father will be different in quantity, and, at least to the extent that it occurs in Canberra, will likely at times be different in quality, to the time they would be able to spend together if X remained living in Adelaide. However, I accept the submission made on behalf of the Mother that the alternate weekend time proposed by the Father as an alternative position will still enable them to spend meaningful time together and to continue to develop and strengthen their bond and their relationship, such that X will still grow up knowing and experiencing the love and active involvement of his indisputably committed and caring father.
Ms F supported weekend time in Canberra commencing with collection at school and concluding with drop off at school (once X commences school) in order to facilitate the Father's connection to his school life. The Father's proposal allows this to occur.
I am satisfied that the regime contained within the Father's alternative proposal will meet X's best interests following the Mother's relocation.
It will be necessary for the parties to be flexible from time to time to ensure that the arrangements remain workable on an ongoing basis having regard to the availability of flights and X's schooling commitments. I am satisfied that the parties have the capacity to do so and that they will seek appropriate professional assistance in this regard if required.
Both parties agreed that it would be appropriate for the Father to have the option to travel to Canberra to spend an additional weekend with X in any given calendar month upon the provision of additional notice to the Mother if he became able to do so from time to time. This option was supported by Ms F, who opined that it would be best for X for the Father to travel to Canberra more frequently and spend more time with him if he could do so having regard to his other commitments, provided that additional visits were presented to X as a bonus, rather than their absence being described or viewed as something being taken away from him.
In light of the child-focused manner in which the Mother has supported X in enjoying his time with his father to date, I do not consider there to be any appreciable risk that she would knowingly place him in a situation where he would expect to spend time with his father and then feel let down or disappointed.

[112]

Although the Father's evidence was that his current circumstances would not enable him to move to Canberra, he sought that in the event that the Mother's relocation application was successful, the orders include ongoing provision for time in the event that he and X resided in the same city in future, in case his circumstances changed such that he was able to move to Canberra. Such provision would also apply in the less likely event that the Mother and X were not to move to Canberra or were to return to Adelaide in future. I agree that it is in X's best interests to cater for such contingencies, so that the risk of future damaging litigation between his parents can be minimised.
As discussed above, the Father's proposal was that if the parties resided in the same city, X's time with him build up to equal time, being an arrangement which I have found would not be in X's best interests.
In her report, Ms F recommended a build-up to three or four nights per fortnight with the Father once X is settled into school if the parties resided in the same city. In light of the orders which will be made as outlined above, by June 2026, X will have been spending four nights per fortnight with the Father prior to his move to Canberra, and two nights in one fortnight and three nights in the other following his move.
The Mother's proposal was that from January 2027, if the parties were residing in the same city, X spend time with the Father for a total of three nights per fortnight, being alternate weekends from 4:00pm Friday until 4:00pm Sunday, and each intervening Wednesday overnight. In my view, this is an appropriate regime for any period after June 2026 when the parties are residing in the same city, save that in light of the build-up of time that will already have occurred, and the fact that X will already have experienced three-night blocks from Friday to Monday, it is in his best interests that the alternate weekend block be extended to conclude on Monday. This will enable handovers to occur at school, thus minimising contact between the parties and facilitating the Father's involvement in X's schooling.

[113]

Ms F opined that if relocation was to occur, it would not be necessary to wait until X commenced school before he commenced spending school holiday time with the Father, as long as it was done slowly and he was not overloaded with both kindergarten and travel. She expressed no concern about the prospect of such time occurring in Adelaide, opining that ideally, Adelaide would be X's second home. She suggested one way of managing this would be to build up by adding one night onto the regular block at a time. She recommended building the regular time to a three-night block before adding in school holiday time.
It was submitted on behalf of the Father that if relocation was to occur, school holiday time should build up more quickly than might otherwise have been the case, in order to mitigate the impact of the distance on X's ability to spend time with the Father. I accept that the merit in that submission but remain conscious of the need to ensure that the build-up of time is gradual enough to ensure that it does not jeopardise X's ability to adjust and experience the increased time with the Father as a positive and fulfilling experience.
In the witness box, the Mother confirmed that she did not seek to limit X's school holiday time with the Father to taking place in Canberra, and that during the period when school holiday time was building up, she did not propose that the time X spent with the Father during school holiday periods be limited to single short blocks.
The Father sought that X spend time with him for a six-night block during the October 2026 school holidays and then for half of each school holiday period thereafter. The Mother proposed that from 2027, X spend a single block of four nights with the Father during school holidays, building to blocks of a week's duration (and week about during the long summer holidays) from December 2029.
In my view, having regard to Ms F's recommendations, X's best interests would be served by a gradually increasing regime for school holiday time, falling between the proposals of the two parties, as follows:

[116]

The parties agreed that irrespective of whether X and the Father reside in the same city or in different cities, X would spend time with each parent from 23 December until Boxing Day in alternating years, commencing with X being in the care of the Mother in 2025. I am satisfied that such an arrangement is in X's best interests, noting that he will already be spending three-night blocks with the Father pursuant to the planned build-up of time prior to his first experience of a three-night block with the Father for Christmas.
With respect to Easter, by the conclusion of the trial, the Court was informed that the parties had agreed that the time would ultimately build up to a block of four nights with each parent in alternating years, and that X would spend Easter with the party with whom he was not spending Christmas in the same calendar year. Counsel for the parties indicated that they did not agree on the year from which such an arrangement would take effect, nor on how the provisions for Easter would interact with the provisions for school holiday time.
The Father's proposal was that X spend time with each of the parties from 6:00pm on Good Friday until 2:00pm on Easter Monday in alternating years, commencing with the Mother in 2026, such that the first such four-night block with the Father would not take place until 2027, at which time X will be five years old, and will already have been spending blocks of four nights with the Father during school holidays pursuant to the orders. In my view, this proposal is developmentally appropriate in light of Ms F's evidence and is in X's best interests.
The Father proposed that the time for Easter occur notwithstanding any other order, such that it took precedence over the orders for school holidays when Easter fell during school holidays. No specific alternative proposal in this regard was articulated by the Mother. I am satisfied that the Father's proposal is in X's best interests as it ensures that time for the special occasion of Easter is spent evenly between his parents.
The Father did not seek orders specifying time for other special occasions if the parties resided in different cities, but in the event that they resided in the same city, he sought provision for time on New Year's Eve, the parties' birthdays, X's birthday, Mother's Day and Father's Day.
The Mother sought provision for time on Mother's Day, Father's Day and X's birthday irrespective of whether the parties resided in the same city.
In my view, specific provision for New Year's Eve would be unnecessarily disruptive in relation to the long summer holiday arrangements, particularly noting its proximity to Christmas, and X's best interests would be served by X remaining in the care of the parent with whom he will already be spending time, which accords with the Mother's proposal. There was no evidence before the Court suggesting that New Year's Eve was an occasion of any particular significance to the Father or his family.
With respect to Mother's Day, Father's Day, the parties' birthdays, and X's birthday, it is in my view unwise to attempt to set out prescriptive arrangements for time with each of the parents which will cater for all of the various permutations and configurations that might arise having regard to the different possibilities with respect to each of the parties' living arrangements and availability to travel and how these occasions will interact with X's regular arrangements, including travel arrangements and school holiday arrangements, from time to time. In my view, the course that will best meet X's best interests and accommodate the desire of each of the parents to spend time with him for these occasions to the maximum extent possible will be for the orders to provide as follows:

[120]

The poor state of the parties' coparenting relationship, as already discussed, is a factor which weighs against the parties sharing responsibility for decision-making with respect to major long-term issues. The parties have already engaged in conflict with respect to major long-term issues including not only the relocation issue but the question of X's surname, being an issue in relation to which the parties hold differing recollections as to the extent to which agreement was initially reached, and in relation not which they were ultimately unable to agree, resulting in tribunal proceedings.
Notwithstanding this, the evidence reveals that there has consistently been what Ms F described as 'a level of functional communication' between the parties with respect to issues pertaining to X's interests. Ms F observed that the parties had managed to shield X from conflict and that both were aware of their obligations and responsibilities to ensure that he was not impacted. Ms F gave evidence that joint decision-making did not appear to be entirely unworkable to the point where no decision would be able to be made.
It was submitted on behalf of the Mother that if X was residing in Canberra with her, she should have sole responsibility for making decisions with respect to X; and that she had already demonstrated a willingness to provide the Father with detailed information about X, such that the Court could have confidence that she would continue to do so. The orders she sought included provision for her to keep the Father informed in a timely manner of all long-term decisions made by her.
Ms F suggested that if the parties were living in different states, then given that the Mother would be physically located in the relevant place and would know the schools and other relevant institutions, it may be best for her to have the final decision-making authority, but she recommended that the Father be able to 'feed in' to such decisions.
Although the Mother expressed concern about the need to make decisions about X's medical care quickly, the need to consult with respect to major long-term issues would not preclude her from making immediate short-term decisions in emergency circumstances.
It was submitted on behalf of the Father that vesting sole decision-making in the Mother would remove him from significant aspects of X's life, and have the effect of sidelining him, which would not serve X's best interests. Ms F agreed that joint decision-making responsibility would facilitate the Father being informed and engaged.
In my view, the need to promote, rather than diminish, the Father's ability to take active involvement in parenting is greater than it would otherwise be in circumstances in which the distance between the parties' homes will prevent him from taking active involvement in parenting X in some other ways.
Counsel for the Father submitted that the Court should view the parties' coparenting relationship in light of their mutual commitment to prioritise X and his needs, and in terms of their demonstrated capacity, rather than the current low ebb in their dynamic at the conclusion of emotionally draining litigation, particularly given that their engagement in family therapy had been paused for a lengthy period, thus depriving them of the opportunity to work on their coparenting communication and develop it beyond the strained and artificial context of written communications.
The Father's Counsel emphasised that the communications between the parties as demonstrated in the evidence before the Court were respectful, flexible and child-focused. The Father, in particular, it was submitted, had consistently attempted to keep the peace, had made genuine efforts to work with the Mother and cooperate with her wishes, and had been conciliatory in his approach. It was also submitted that it was evident that both parties genuinely wanted to be 'on the same page.' I accept these submissions. I note also that the Father is a highly motivated and interested parent.
In my view, X's best interests will be served by the parties having joint responsibility for major long-term decisions. X is fortunate enough to have two genuinely child-focused and committed parents. His father will already potentially be less involved in important aspects of X's life than would ideally be the case as a result of the distance between them. I am satisfied that the Father's ongoing involvement in the making of major long-term decisions will assist with mitigating the impact of that on X and will thereby serve his best interests.

[123]

Each of the parties sought injunctions which were opposed by the other. The power to grant such an injunction is found in subsection 68B(2) of the Act, which provides, in summary, that the Court may grant an injunction in relation to a child in any case in which it appears to the Court to be just or convenient to do so. Although the paramountcy principle in section 60CA does not apply to the granting of an injunction, X's best interests are a relevant consideration.[25]
In the event that the Mother succeeded in her relocation application, the Father sought an injunction restraining her from moving with X to any location other than Canberra or Adelaide. The Mother confirmed that she had no intention of moving from Canberra to anywhere else or seeking to do so. I accept that evidence, noting in particular that Canberra is the Mother's city of origin and is where her family resides. It was submitted on behalf of the Mother that the proposed injunction would impose a restriction on the Mother's freedom of movement to which the Father would not also be subject.
Clearly, it would not be in X's best interests for the Mother to move with him to any location of her choosing without reference to the Father. However, in my view, in light of the other orders being made, the injunction sought by the Father is otiose and it is therefore not just or convenient to grant it.
In this regard, the order for joint decision-making responsibility requires that the parties consult with one another and make a genuine effort to reach a joint decision before any such decision is made in relation to major long-term issues, including changes to X's living arrangements that make it significantly more difficult for him to spend time with the Father and changes to X's school.[26]
Furthermore, the orders for time which are to be made contain specific reference to time occurring in Adelaide and in Canberra. As such, any proposed change to X's city of residence would necessitate variations to those orders. As a consequence, the Mother would be required by the terms of the orders that are to be made either to reach agreement with the Father or to make further application to the Court in the event of the development of any proposal to move to any other location with X.
The Mother sought mutual injunctions restraining the parties from attending at or remaining in the vicinity of the residence or workplace of the other or allowing their partner or members of their family to do so. She accepted that neither the Father nor any members of his family had done anything inappropriate in that regard. I accept the submission of Counsel for the Father that there is no evidence to support the making of such an injunction.
The Mother also sought an injunction restraining the parties from communicating with each other, other than by email. This proposed injunction included prohibitions on communication by telephone or text message. The Mother gave no evidence of any conduct on behalf of the Father that would appear to be linked to any basis for such an injunction. Again, I accept the submission of Counsel for the Father that there is no evidence to support such an injunction.
The Mother sought that the parties each be restrained from making appointments for X for any activity while he was living with the other, save in an emergency. The basis for such an injunction was not apparent from the evidence relied on by the Mother. Counsel for the Father submitted that the proposed injunction was vague and uncertain and therefore apt to give rise to conflict between the parties. I accept that submission. A literal interpretation of the proposed order would prohibit the Father from making any appointments for X for any purpose at any time, noting that he will be at all times 'living with' the Mother even when he is spending time in the care of the Father.
For these reasons, I am not satisfied that it is in X's best interests, nor just or convenient, to grant any of the injunctions sought by either of the parties (other than those sought by consent, which are discussed below).

[125]

The Father proposed an order providing that in the event that either party is unable to care for X during any period pursuant to the orders that X is scheduled to be in their care for a period of or exceeding five nights, then the other party be given first option to care for him. This proposal was put on the basis that if this occurred during school time, any such caring would occur in the city in which X resides.
It was submitted on behalf of the Mother that this could result in X travelling to Adelaide for the purpose of spending time with the Father, the first option to care for him being given to the Mother, and X not actually spending time with the Father at all. However, the absence of such an order could also result in X travelling to Adelaide but spending no time with the Father if the Father were not available, with the only difference being that in such circumstances, he would not necessarily be returned to the Mother's care.
Given the closeness of X's relationship with each of his parents and their parenting competence, I consider it in his best interests to enable each of the parties to have the first option to care for him if the other is unable to do so for an extended time. In the case of the Father, in the event that the Father is able to do so, this is likely to provide a valuable opportunity to provide additional care for X, which may mitigate some of the impact of the reduction in their ability to spend time together which will arise from the Mother's relocation. I consider the five day trigger to be a reasonable condition, as it will prevent the provision from causing undue interference with the parties' ability to make their own plans for X's care to cater for short term absences.
The order will include a provision that any period of time spent by X with the Father pursuant to such an option is not to exceed the greatest number of consecutive nights he has previously spent in his care at the relevant time, so as to ensure that the provision does not undermine the carefully considered and developmentally appropriate build-up of time with the Father that is otherwise provided for in the orders.

Knight & Redding [2025] FedCFamC2F 670 (21 May 2025)

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Catchwords

Source

Catchwords

Judgment (144 paragraphs)

Legislation Cited (3)

Cases Cited (3)