• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
[email protected] (02) 9299 4912

Lawyers Sydney | Solicitors in North Shore, Sydney

  • Home
  • Our Story
    • Our Community
    • Our Environment
  • Our Services
    • Sydney’s Premier Commercial Law Firm
      • Starting A New Business
        • New Business Structures
      • Buying & Selling a Business
        • Corporate Mergers and Acquisitions (M&A)
        • Sale or Purchase of Shares in a Private Company
        • FAQ – Sale of Business
        • FAQ – Purchase of Business
      • Commercial Dispute Resolution Law in Sydney
      • Corporate Governance & Asset Protection
      • Intellectual Property & IP Law
      • Contract Law
      • Climate Change, Energy Law & Carbon Trading
    • DEBT RECOVERY LAW
      • Debt Recovery Process
      • Enforcing a Debt or Judgment
      • Car Accidents & Motor Vehicle Claims
    • PROBATE LAW
      • Applying for a Grant of Probate
      • Contesting a Will
      • FAQ’s – Executors and the Administration of Deceased Estates
    • Civil Disputes & Litigation
      • Commercial Dispute Resolution Law in Sydney
        • Shareholder Disputes
        • Partnership Disputes
        • Director’s Disputes
        • Contract & Property Disputes
      • Litigation
        • COMMERCIAL LITIGATION LAWYERS IN SYDNEY
      • Negligence
      • Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
    • Property & Conveyancing
      • Retail & Commercial Leases
      • Selling a Property
        • FAQ – Selling a Property
      • Buying a Property
        • FAQ – Buying a Property
      • Transferring Property in NSW
      • Property Owners Disputes
      • Caveats
      • Mortgages & Securities
      • Option Agreements
      • Electronic Conveyancing in NSW
    • WILL DISPUTE LAW
      • Drafting a Will
        • Children in Wills
        • Letter of Wishes
        • Digital Assets in a Will
      • Power of Attorney
      • Guardianship & Enduring Guardians
      • Elder Law
      • FAQ’s – Wills and Estates
    • Bankruptcy & Insolvency
      • Personal Bankruptcy
        • Bankruptcy Notices
        • Debt Agreements
        • Enforcing a Debt or Judgment
      • Company Insolvency
        • Creditor’s Statutory Demand
        • Creditor’s Petition
        • Winding Up or Deregistering a Company
    • Building & Construction
      • Building & Construction Contracts
      • Building & Construction Disputes
      • Security for Payments Act
    • SYDNEY EMPLOYMENT LAW
    • Insurance Law
    • Public Notary
  • Online Quotes
    • Simple Will Quote
    • Debt Recovery Quote
    • Conveyancing Quote
  • Meet the Team
    • Michelle Rockliff
    • Nicole Rockliff
    • Sarah Mooney
    • Nathan Rockliff
    • Trudy David
  • News & Articles
  • Contact Us
You are here: Home / News / Divorce & Family Law / Do children of divorced parents have the right to decide which parent they live with?

04/04/2017

Do children of divorced parents have the right to decide which parent they live with?

In the decision of Bondelmonte v Bondelmonte, the High Court ordered the return of two boys aged 17 and 15 who were residing in the US with their father, despite the boys’ express unwillingness to do so. In their decision, the High Court affirmed that ultimately the wishes of anyone under the age of 18 are only one factor for the Judge to take into account when deciding what is in a child’s best interests.  They have to look at all the factors set out in section 60CC of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) – not just the child’s wishes.

The father and mother, in that case, had two boys and a girl and both had equal shared parental responsibility for the children. As a consequence, decisions about major long-term issues relating to the children must be made jointly.

The parties and the children lived in Australia until January 2016. On 14 January 2016 the father, with the consent of the mother, took the boys on what was supposed to be a two-week holiday to New York. A few days before the boys were to return from their holiday to Australia, the father’s solicitor notified the mother that the father had decided to remain in the US indefinitely and the boys had elected to remain with him, and would not be returned. This was in breach of the parenting orders the mother and father had entered into in 2014.

The mother then filed an application under the Act seeking orders to have the two boys returned to the Australia to reside with the mother. The decision to make parenting orders under the Act requires that the Court have regards to the best interest of the children as the paramount consideration. To determine what those best interests for the children were, the Act also requires consideration of the benefit of the children having a meaningful relationship with both children’s parents. However, an additional consideration includes any views expressed by the children and any factors that the Court thinks are relevant to the weight it should give to the children’s views.

In the initial hearing, His Honour Justice Watts ordered the return of the boys to Australia. His Honour accepted the views of the boys and their desire to reside with their father, however, formed the opinion that those views were weakened by the circumstances which have been contrived by the father. The father then appealed to the Full Court, where the appeal was dismissed.

After being granted special leave the father appealed to the High Court. The High Court rejected the father’s argument that Justice Watts erred in discounting the boys’ expressed preferences to remain in New York because His Honour formed an adverse view of the father’s actions. The High Court also affirmed that nothing in section 60CC(3)(a) of the Act requires a Court to seek the views of a child, and while the Act provides a mechanism for doing so, it does not oblige the Court to do so in every case.

The Court also noted that the father’s flagrant disregard of the parenting orders was a matter relevant to the children’s best interests under the Act.

Despite the children explicitly stating that they wanted to stay with the father in New York, the Court looked at what was in their best interests overall, including the disruption of their relationship with the mother and their sister, which was something that the boys had not considered when expressing their views.

This case has shed some light on the misconception that teenagers over a certain age can elect to reside with whichever parent they wish. Ultimately, the Court’s paramount consideration is to make decisions in the best interest of the child, and in doing so must primarily consider the benefit of having a meaningful relationship with both of the child’s parents and the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm.

If you would like advice on your parenting orders or children’s arrangements, please contact Cristian Fuenzalida or Anthi Balafas for an initial consultation.

Primary Sidebar

Search

Categories

  • Wills & Estate Planning
  • Insurance Law
  • General Legal Services
  • Divorce & Family Law
  • Debt Recovery
  • Civil Disputes & Litigation
  • Business & Commercial
  • Building & Construction
  • Bankruptcy & Insolvency
  • General
  • Uncategorised
  • Taxation
  • Superannuation
  • Services
  • Property & Conveyancing
  • Probate, Estate Administration & Disputes
  • News
  • Employment Law

Online Enquiry

* indicates required field

News & Articles

Managing Employees in Australia given the Impact of COVID-19

  We stress that due to the unprecedented nature of the pandemic and the very rapidly changing landscape, the guidelines below are general in nature and subject to change. Many of the laws that now apply to this situation were not written with regard to what is currently occurring. Therefore please exercise caution in relying […]

Temporary Changes to Insolvency Laws in Australia due to the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Crisis

In a move aimed to lessen the economic impact on businesses and individuals caused by the Coronavirus pandemic, the Australian Government has introduced some changes to insolvency laws in Australia that apply to personal and corporate insolvency regimes. This includes a temporary increase to the threshold in which creditors can issue a statutory demand on […]

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Update

Following on from the extensive reporting in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic we have implemented a number of protocols to enable the business to continue operating if a staff member or principal is diagnosed with the virus and/or the office needs to close for a period of time. Our staff and principals have adopted best […]

Footer

The Rockliffs Lawyers Difference

We provide pragmatic and practical solutions to your legal needs
We have decades of combined experience
Our lawyers and consultants are experts in their field to enable us to give you tailored legal advice to suit your specific needs

Contact Us

  • Suite 14, Level 26, 44 Market St Sydney NSW 2000
  • (02) 9299 4912

Connect With Us

  • Email
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn

Newsletter

Sign up to our newsletter for updates on our latest news, articles and special promotions!

Our website does not give legal advice. All materials are for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon as legal advice. The use of this website is subject to our:
WEBSITE DISCLAIMER – PRIVACY POLICY – TERMS & CONDITIONS OF USE
Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.Copyright © 2020 · Website hosted by Lift Legal Marketing · Log out