This case explores what can happen when a parent is granted permission to relocate a child overseas — and the other parent successfully appeals that decision.
The Background
A mother was allowed under parenting orders to relocate to Dubai with her young child. The child was born in Australia from an 18-month relationship between a university student and her lecturer. Although they planned to marry and raise the child in Dubai, the relationship broke down before the father moved overseas. The mother remained in Dubai with the child.
The father applied to the court to have the child returned to Australia. The mother wanted to remain overseas and proposed that the father visit the child in Dubai four times a year. The father instead proposed a shared care model in Australia, offering to pay for the mother’s return to help make that possible.
The Original Court Decision
The court made orders granting equal shared parental responsibility but allowed the mother to live in Dubai with the child. It also provided different arrangements depending on whether the father relocated or stayed in Australia. The father appealed.
Why Did the Father Appeal?
The father raised several concerns with the original decision, including:
- The lack of proper consideration for equal or significant time with both parents.
- The court’s failure to assess the practicality of the proposed travel schedule (four visits per year to Dubai).
- The impact of the relocation on his ability to build a meaningful relationship with his child.
- The offer of financial assistance to help the mother return to Australia was not taken into account.
- The court overestimated the emotional harm to the mother if she was asked to relocate.
- The child’s best interests — including emotional connection with both parents — were not properly weighed.
What the Appeal Court Said
The appeal court found several errors in the original judgment:
1. Lack of Expert Evidence
Despite the significance of the relocation and the age of the child, no expert evidence was submitted from a Family Consultant or an Independent Children’s Lawyer (ICL). The appeal court noted this was a serious oversight, especially in a complex international parenting matter.
2. Equal Time & Shared Parental Responsibility Not Properly Considered
The original court failed to follow Section 65DAA of the Family Law Act 1975, which outlines when courts must consider equal or substantial time with both parents after granting shared parental responsibility.
3. Practical Issues Ignored
The magistrate didn’t give enough weight to:
- The father’s limited ability to travel internationally.
- The feasibility of the Dubai arrangement.
- The father’s financial proposal to support the mother’s return to Australia.
- The fact that any emotional toll on the mother from returning wasn’t backed by evidence.
4. A Meaningful Relationship Wasn’t Prioritised
The court did not give proper weight to the child’s right to a meaningful relationship with both parents, particularly with the father. The limited contact proposed (four annual visits) was not sufficient to build that relationship.
Outcome
- The father’s appeal was successful.
- The original parenting orders were set aside.
- The matter was sent back to the Family Court for rehearing.
Why This Case Matters
This case highlights the importance of weighing all parenting options carefully, particularly in relocation cases where one parent might live overseas. Courts must focus on the child’s best interests, including the right to have both parents actively involved in their life.
It also shows how missing expert input (such as from a family consultant or psychologist) can seriously impact the quality of the court’s decision.
Practical Tip
If you’re involved in an international parenting dispute:
- Seek legal advice early — especially if relocation is on the table.
- Provide detailed proposals, including finances and living arrangements.
- Push for expert input — such as an ICL or family consultant.
- Focus on your child’s long-term emotional connection with both parents.