 |
| |
|
 Kids suffer when a parent moves away or is made to stay |
|
 |
|
 |
|
When Doug's former wife told him she planned to leave Sydney and take their young child to the NSW north coast to live, he suffered severe depression. The 35-year-old tradesman from the western suburbs - who was struggling to pay child support, rent and create a new life - desperately looked forward to his fortnightly visits with his 6-year -old son.
His son also loved the time he spent with his father, particularly the "adventures" to the local park, long trips to the beach and having his dad unexpectedly turn up to watch him play soccer on the weekend. Doug's ex-wife, Carol, said she wanted to settle in Coffs Harbour because of the cheaper lifestyle but he suspected her real motivation was to stop him from seeing his child.
Coffs Harbour was at least eight hours drive away which ensured Doug could only visit his son for school holidays and not every second weekend as the pair had grown used to.Then there was the case of a devoutly religious father who decided he was moving with his son to their "spiritual home" in the Middle East.
The mother, who did not have legal residence of their child, was sick with fear she would never again see her son, who had been born and raised in Australia. These are the sorts of problems the Family Court deals with regularly as they sort through the problems created when a parent who has residence of children decides to take them away in pursuit of a new life.
With society now more mobile than it ever was, this is becoming an increasingly common problem faced by broken families. The court has the power to prevent children being taken to live overseas, interstate or away from a particular district but the decision depends on the individual circumstances of each case.
In every case, the court will only make orders on what it considers will be in the best interests of the children. The court may allow the parent with residence to move - even overseas - provided proper safeguards can be built in for extended contact.
Sometimes this includes ordering one parent to contribute to the cost of their former partner making the journey to visit their children. That is what happened in the Middle East case but in the Coffs harbour matter the court ordered the child not be taken from Sydney because it found the ex-wife's aim was to seer the relationship between father and child.
The Court has to perform a delicate juggling act in deciding the best interest of the children. It considers the effect the move will have on them, the lack of frequent contact with the non-resident parent and extended family and their attitude to the arrangements.
Any cultural, racial and religious problems caused by a move to a new country will also be considered by the court. Now consider the perspective of Ellie. Her new husband, Ben, has been offered a job as Vice President of information technology at a large New York Bank. Ellie and Ben have two children, Oscar aged 2 and Max aged 4. Ellie has a daughter , Louise aged 7, from her marriage to Greg.
The move is a temporary one and would provide Ben with career opportunities, the children with international experiences and the family with ample funds to facilitate twice yearly contact between Greg and the children. Louise has also started using the internet and would email her father. Ellie is stressed by the prospect of Ben losing this opportunity or alternatively her losing Ben.
Catherine moved to Tasmania to marry Roger and then had a son, Chris, before they separated. Catherine's family all live in Melbourne. She was a dentist in St Kilda. she wants to return to Melbourne where she can work and her mum can mind Chris. If you have a problem which involves the relocation of a child you should contact a specialist family lawyer.
February 2001
February, 2001
|
|
 |
|
