Relocation Proposals - A Common Scenario

The crux of most relocation cases comes down to the competing proposals brought by each party. Much of the court’s deliberations involves them weighing the advantages and disadvantages of each proposal before them, and decide which would be in the best interest of the child.

Let us examine a common relocation scenario:

Jane and Tom have one daughter together, Eliza, who is six years old. Jane and Tom separated two years ago and have maintained a cordial co-parenting relationship since then. There are no concerns about family violence. Since their separation, Eliza has primarily lived with Jane and spent time with Tom every Friday and Saturday. Jane and Tom both currently live and work in Bendigo.

Jane has now found a better work opportunity in Sydney offering a salary of $80,000 per annum. It is unlikely she will ever find employment in Bendigo offering an equal salary. She currently earns $40,000 a year. Jane’s parents and sister all live in Sydney and they will be able to look after Eliza while Jane is at work. Eliza has spent at least a month each year at her maternal grandparent’s house since she was born.

Tom runs his own mechanic business in Bendigo and has an established reputation as a local mechanic. His parents live in Melbourne.

Jane has now filed an application to the court requesting that she be permitted to relocate to Sydney with Eliza. Tom is resisting that application.

There are a variety of different proposals that can be brought to the court. The examples given below do not constitute any sort of full examination of the available proposals, but are simply some common arrangements that we have seen when dealing with these cases on a regular basis. We hope that the example proposals given below will allow you to start thinking about how you can arrange your own parenting decisions in a way that suits you and your family. Work schedules, availability of childcare, a child’s age, maturity, extracurricular activities and a host of other factors might mean that a proposal that is suitable for another family is completely unsuitable for yours.

Proposal One:

1.     That Jane be allowed to relocate to Sydney with Eliza.

Of course, this is what Jane is hoping for. However, the challenge for the court is that this would mean Eliza’s time with her father will now be substantially restricted. On a basic level, there is no reasonable or practical way for Eliza to spend every Friday and Saturday with her father any longer. Alternative time spending arrangements will need to be made to allow Eliza to spend substantial and significant time with her father. This can include:

a.     That Eliza and Jane fly to Sydney once a month so that Eliza can spend time with Tom from Saturday mornings to Sunday evenings, and that once Eliza is mature enough to fly as an unaccompanied minor, that Eliza fly to Sydney once every fortnight instead. 

b.     That the parents alternate flying to each other’s residential cities on a fortnightly basis, so that Eliza can spend weekends with Tom on a regular basis in both Sydney and Bendigo. This could allow Tom to become more involved in Eliza’s life in Sydney.

c.     That Eliza will spend three-quarters of each school holiday period with Tom, to make up for the time that she is missing out on during school terms.

2.     That Jane remain living in Bendigo with Eliza.

This is likely to be Tom’s preferred outcome, as it will allow him to continue to spend substantial and significant time with Eliza, and potentially increase his time with her in the future as she grows older.

Notably, this outcome is generally only available to the court if Jane agrees to continue living in Melbourne if the court does not grant her relocation application. There are times where a parent might decide that they must relocate regardless of whether their children can go with them.

Some possible arrangements that might be made under this proposal are:

a.     The current proposal remains in place, with Eliza spending each Friday and Saturday with Tom;

b.     Tom’s time with Eliza to increase, possibly even progressing to an equal time arrangement. This might occur on a weekabout arrangement, with Eliza switching her residence between Jane and Tom’s houses each week.

3.     That Eliza live with Tom in Bendigo while Jane relocates to Sydney.

This would involve a reversal of Proposal 1. Although in this situation Eliza can remain living in Bendigo, and it might be seen as the less significant change as Eliza will stay in the same school, live in the same city, and see the same friends. However, it cannot be discounted the significance of a change of the primary caregiver for a child. This is especially true for younger children.

In such a situation, the court will need to strictly examine Tom’s capacity to be the primary caregiver for Eliza. This will involve a determination regarding his ability to provide appropriate physical and emotional care for Eliza, what his childcare arrangements will be during work hours, and the impact of a change in primary caregiver on Eliza.

The possible time spending arrangements would be similar to those in Proposal 1, except reversed in application.

4.     That Tom move to Sydney to follow Jane and Eliza.

This is probably one of the more unlikely scenarios, since if such a arrangement were possible, the parties would probably have agreed to do so outside of court. However, it is always useful to float this idea with the other parent, just in case it is something they are willing to consider.

We find that it is more likely for a parent to make this decision once final orders are made allowing the relocation.