AUSTRALIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Eleanor Lau, Skye Owen and Monica Bayas Inglis, Lander & Rogers
qualifications of the expert, the issues in dis - pute and how complex those issues are, and the amount of materials the expert needs to consider. If parties do not have the means to pay the costs associated with private experts, there are experts who are employed by the Court who can prepare reports at no cost to the parties, although, once again, the waiting time for these experts tends to be longer. 2.3.9 Time Taken by an Application for Relocation Several factors may influence the length of time it takes for the Court to determine a relocation applica - tion, including: • the availability of judicial officers; • how long it takes for an expert report to be com - pleted, with many private and court-based experts having significant delays in availability given the number of matters requiring reports and the limited number of experts with experience in family law matters; • whether the parties comply with Court directions; • whether proceedings are delayed in order to appoint legal representatives for a party if there are family violence allegations and one of the parties is unable to afford representation or does not qualify for public funding; and • whether any interim or interlocutory judgments are subject to appeal. Parenting matters are given some priority over finan - cial matters, and the Court’s central practice direction optimistically notes that parenting matters should be listed for a final hearing within 12 months from the date of filing the original application. However, the reality is that it often takes more than 18 months for a parenting matter to be heard, and then additional time for judgment to be delivered. If an appeal in relation to the judgment is filed within 28 days of the judgment being delivered, that can also extend the timetable for the application to be finally determined. 2.3.10 Primary Caregivers Versus Left-Behind Parents Neither the legislation, case law nor legal principles in relocation matters expressly favour primary caregiv - ers.
However, the Court may be more sympathetic to a primary caregiver who: • has experienced family violence; • is supportive of, and has demonstrated consistent support to, the child’s relationship with the left- behind parent; • is struggling financially, with limited (if any) financial support from the left-behind parent; and • is experiencing mental health vulnerabilities as a result of limited family and social support, which are impacting the primary carer’s parenting of the child. 2.4 Relocation Within a Jurisdiction The same considerations apply if the proposed relo - cation is within the same jurisdiction. However, the Court may apply different weight to different consid - erations depending on the location of the proposed relocation and the distance between the child and the left-behind parent. It is also open to the Court to consider, as an option, the left-behind parent relocating to a location closer to the child if the child is permitted to relocate. Although this option is available to the Court to consider in international relocation applications, it is potentially a much more practicable proposal depending on the proximity of the proposed relocation. Consideration of this option would require the Court to give the par - ties notice of such an option being considered by the Court, and an opportunity to respond to it. If a parent who holds parental responsibility for a child does not consent to the child’s removal from Australia, it is an offence to remove that child from Australia if parenting proceedings have been initiated (and not determined), or if parenting orders have been made in relation to the child (unless those orders include specific travel provisions). Failure to obtain written consent could result in a crim - inal conviction for the wrongful removal of a child from Australia. In such circumstances, there is a penalty of 3. Child Abduction 3.1 Legality
18 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook