Wendland & Wendland [2017] FamCAFC 244
The Full Court’s decision in Wendland & Wendland [2017] FamCAFC 244 dealt with one of the more difficult aspects of parenting disputes: how to balance a parent’s career demands, particularly in the Australian Defence Force (ADF), with a child’s need for stability and a meaningful relationship with both parents.
The outcome is a good reminder that parenting decisions are not about geography alone. The Court looks at the entire context including the child’s stability, the quality of parental relationships, and the parents’ individual circumstances.
Our team of Specialist Family Lawyers have acquired niche expertise assisting those in the Military, Police or in their role as First Responders over many years, and understand the unique challenges that need to be addressed through separation.
Background
The parties met in 2012, were married in 2014, and separated on a final basis in 2016. Their child was born in 2013 and was about four years old at the time of the hearing. The mother had been in the ADF since she was 20 and had been stationed in Town H since 2008. As part of her career, she could be posted to different locations across Australia, and she sought Court Orders that would allow her to take the child with her wherever the ADF might send her, within Australia.
The trial judge allowed this, making parenting orders that gave the mother primary care of the child and permitted relocation in accordance with her future postings.
The Appeal
The father appealed, arguing that the orders were too uncertain and gave the mother “a blank cheque” to relocate without proper consideration of how it would affect the child’s relationship with the father. The child had always lived in Town H and had a regular routine with the father. He also argued that the orders left too much open to future unknowns.
The Father also relied on concerns raised in the family report being “the family report writer opined that without knowing the proposed destination, the effect on the relationship between the father and the child, for example, could not be determined and therefore he would recommend against the order proposed by the mother.”
Findings
The Court accepted that relocation would make the father’s time with the child more difficult and less frequent. However, this did not mean that the relationship would stop being meaningful. The judge had considered how time could still be facilitated through school holidays and flights. The Court also clarified that a judge is not bound to follow expert recommendations, such as a Family Report and must weigh all of the evidence.
The Court also recognised the legitimacy of the mother’s career in the ADF and acknowledged that requiring her to remain in one place or forgo future postings could affect her wellbeing and her ability to care for the child.
