What happens when one parent moves away after separation, making it harder for the children to see both parents regularly? In Wilkins & Wilkins [2024], the Federal Circuit and Family Court had to resolve parenting arrangements for a child whose mother had relocated from Sydney to regional New South Wales.
The father wanted more time with his son. The mother was concerned about safety, travel logistics, and the child’s well-being. This case shows how the court balances both parents’ rights with the child’s best interests—especially when long distances are involved.
Background: A Child Caught Between Two Homes
The parties had one child together, born in 2016. After their separation, the child initially lived with the mother. The father had limited contact but wanted regular and substantial time, including school holidays and some weekends.
The mother later moved over five hours away to a regional town. The father remained in Sydney.
This raised serious questions:
- How could the child maintain a relationship with the father?
- Was the travel too burdensome for the child?
- What parenting schedule was realistic given the distance?
The Mother’s Concerns
The mother opposed the father’s proposal for frequent time during school terms, arguing:
- The child would need to travel over 10 hours for short visits
- Disruption to school, routines, and sleep would be harmful
- The father had been inconsistent in maintaining communication and following through with previous plans
- She had concerns about the father’s emotional regulation and his criticism of her in front of the child
She supported longer blocks of time during school holidays instead of frequent shorter visits.
The Father’s Position
The father wanted:
- Shared parental responsibility
- Fortnightly time with the child during school terms (including overnight stays in Sydney)
- Extended time during holidays
He said the mother had unilaterally moved without consulting him, making it harder for him to maintain a close relationship with his son.
What the Court Decided
1. Shared Parental Responsibility Was Rejected
Instead, the court gave sole parental responsibility to the mother for all long-term decisions.
Why?
The judge found that communication between the parents was poor. The father was often hostile, sent aggressive messages, and criticised the mother to the child. The court decided that joint decision-making would not work and would likely expose the child to conflict.
2. Living Arrangements
- The child would continue to live with the mother in regional NSW.
- The father was granted time during school holidays only—not during school terms.
3. School Holiday Time with the Father
The court ordered the child spend:
- 6 days with the father in April holidays
- 7 days in July
- 7 days in September/October
- 10 days in summer holidays (with dates to be rotated annually)
This schedule was designed to allow meaningful time without constant long-distance travel during the school year.
4. Travel and Transport
- The parents would share the responsibility for transport.
- The court also included orders around punctuality, respectful handovers, and ensuring the child wasn’t exposed to adult conflict.
The Court’s Reasoning
The Family Law Act requires the court to consider the child’s best interests as the paramount concern. In this case, the judge considered:
- The importance of the child having a meaningful relationship with both parents
- The need to protect the child from psychological harm, particularly exposure to parental conflict
- Practical limitations of long-distance travel for a young child
- The emotional impact on the child of frequent transitions between homes
The judge found the father had demonstrated anger and a lack of insight, especially through emails and text messages. This behaviour undermined his position that he could support the child’s wellbeing.
What This Case Tells Us
1. Moving away is not illegal—but it changes the dynamic
The mother’s relocation wasn’t stopped, but it forced the court to reconsider what kind of contact schedule was in the child’s best interests.
2. Communication matters
The father’s poor communication—including aggressive messages and failing to follow parenting protocols—counted against him when asking for more time.
3. School routines are protected
The court was clear that disrupting the child’s education and weekly routine for frequent long-distance visits wasn’t in his best interests.
4. Quality over quantity
The court favoured longer, more stable blocks of time in school holidays over rushed, stressful trips during term time.
5. Sole responsibility doesn’t mean no contact
Even though the mother got sole parental responsibility, the father still got time with the child—just on terms that prioritised stability and safety.
Practical Takeaway
If you’re considering a relocation or facing one from your co-parent, know this:
- The court won’t automatically stop you—but they’ll expect a parenting plan that meets the child’s needs, not just the parents’ wishes.
- If you want more parenting time, your behaviour, communication, and consistency will be heavily scrutinised.