Sandria represented a Father in a case where the Mother wished to re-locate to another part of the country to live with a new partner.
Sandria’s client had a close relationship with his child, having care every weekend. He had concerns about the status of the Mother’s new relationship, as well as about the profound effect the relocation would have on his ability to see his child.
A s.7 Report was directed by the Court. The Report acknowledged the close relationship with the Father and did not recommend re-location.
The Mother, following the recommendations of the Report, decided not to re-locate, but would not agree to an order specifying a shared care arrangement. An initial order had been drafted in terms of the child living with the Mother with contact with the Father. This did not represent the reality of the status quo, and following argument the consent order defined both a shared care arrangement and agreement not to re-locate
Initially the Father had represented himself. This demonstrated the disadvantage of not being represented, as the nuances within an order can appear to be small, but can have long term effects. This case demonstrates the benefits of DPA representation as the client had expert assistance with preparation of the papers, and as a result an order was properly drafted.