Key Takeaways
- Relocation Not Approved: The Court refused to sanction the mother’s unilateral relocation of the children and ordered adherence to the original schooling arrangements.
- Parental Responsibility Shared: Sole parental responsibility was denied to the mother; both parents were to remain involved in major decisions affecting the children.
- Family Violence Findings Balanced: The Court acknowledged coercive behaviour by the father and physical assault by the mother, but determined past violence did not justify altering parental responsibility.
- Children’s Best Interests Prioritised: The Court held that maintaining stability and strong relationships with both parents was in the children's best interests under section 60CC.
- Interim Property Settlement Denied: The mother’s request for $600,000 was refused; the Court deemed the existing $100,000 sufficient given her financial resources and the unjust impact on the father.
Bonhomme & Bonhomme [2024] FedCFamC1F 854
Introduction
The case of Bonhomme & Bonhomme [2024] FedCFamC1F 854 was heard before Justice McGuire in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1). The matter involved a review application by the mother seeking to challenge orders regarding parenting arrangements, sole parental responsibility, and an interim property settlement. The primary legal issues pertained to parenting decisions, family violence considerations, and financial disputes arising from the couple’s separation.
Background
The parties, Ms Bonhomme (the mother) and Mr Bonhomme (the father), cohabited from 2012 and were married in 2016. They have two children, X (born in 2019, aged 5) and Y (born in 2021, aged 3).
The relationship between the parties deteriorated, culminating in their formal separation in September 2023, after which the mother moved out of the former matrimonial home in Suburb B with the children. Initially, the mother stayed with relatives before moving in with her new partner, Mr G, in City H. The relocation placed significant logistical and emotional strain on the father’s ability to maintain regular contact with the children.
The parenting dispute arose when the mother, without formal court approval, relocated the children to City H and unilaterally attempted to enrol them in a new school, despite prior agreements that they would remain in Suburb B for their education. The father opposed this move, arguing that it significantly disrupted his ability to maintain a meaningful relationship with his children.
Simultaneously, the financial dispute stemmed from the mother’s request to increase an interim property settlement from $100,000 (previously ordered) to $600,000, citing legal costs and the need to secure stable housing for the children.
Key Legal Issues and Questions for the Court
The Court had to consider:
- Parental Responsibility & Relocation: Whether the mother should be granted sole parental responsibility to make long-term decisions regarding the children’s education, residence, and extracurricular activities, and whether her unilateral relocation of the children should be sanctioned.
- Family Violence & Safety Considerations: Whether the mother’s allegations of coercive control and emotional abuse justified sole parental responsibility and whether these allegations warranted limiting the father’s access to the children.
- Children’s Best Interests: Whether removing the children from their previously agreed-upon schooling arrangement aligned with their best interests under section 60CC of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), considering their need for stability and meaningful relationships with both parents.
- Interim Property Settlement: Whether the mother was entitled to an increased interim property settlement of $600,000 given the financial circumstances of both parties, and whether requiring the father to sell the former matrimonial home to meet this claim was justifiable before a final property determination.
Case Authorities and Cited Precedents
The Court relied on established family law precedents to guide its reasoning:
- Goode & Goode (2006) FLC 93-286; [2006] FamCA 1346 – Established principles for determining interim parenting orders.
Link: Full Case
- Eaby & Speelman (2015) FLC 93-654; [2015] FamCAFC 104 – Addressed the weight of evidence in family violence allegations.
Link: Full Case
- Morgan & Miles (2007) FLC 93-342; [2007] FamCA 1230 – Defined considerations in parental relocation cases.
Link: Full Case
- Harris & Harris (1993) FLC 92-378; [1993] FamCA 49 – Principles guiding interim property settlements.
Link: Full Case
- Strahan & Strahan (Interim Property Orders) (2011) FLC 93-466; [2009] FamCAFC 166 – Established the need for justification in partial property settlements.
Link: Full Case
Court’s Findings
Justice McGuire ruled on the following key issues:
- Parental Responsibility & Relocation – The Court denied the mother sole parental responsibility, affirming the importance of both parents being involved in key decisions. Her unilateral relocation was not sanctioned, and she was ordered to comply with the previously agreed arrangements regarding the children’s schooling.
- Family Violence Considerations – The Court acknowledged that both parents had engaged in forms of family violence. The father admitted to some coercive and controlling behaviour, while the mother had pleaded guilty to physically assaulting the father. Justice McGuire found that past incidents of family violence had ceased and did not warrant granting sole parental responsibility to the mother.
- Interim Property Settlement – The mother’s request for an increased interim property settlement of $600,000 was denied. The Court found that the existing $100,000 payment was sufficient, considering that the mother had access to litigation funding, owned an investment property, and that granting her request would require the father to sell the family home, which was deemed unjustified at this stage.
Legal Implications and Precedent Summary
This case sets a clear precedent in family law matters, particularly regarding relocation disputes, parental responsibility, and interim financial settlements. Parental relocation without consent is unlikely to succeed unless the relocating parent demonstrates exceptional circumstances. Family violence considerations are weighed carefully but do not automatically determine parental responsibility. The best interests of the children remain paramount, particularly in maintaining strong relationships with both parents. Additionally, interim property settlements require strong justification and cannot unduly disrupt the financial stability of the other party before a final property determination.
Keywords
- Family law
- Relocation disputes
- Parental responsibility
- Family violence allegations
- Interim property settlement
- Children’s best interests
- Parenting orders
- Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
Conclusion and Call to Action
The Bonhomme & Bonhomme [2024] FedCFamC1F 854 decision highlights the complexities of parenting arrangements, relocation disputes, and financial settlements in family law. The case underscores the importance of adhering to court-approved parenting agreements, the weight given to family violence allegations, and the legal thresholds for interim property settlements.
For expert legal guidance on parenting disputes, relocation matters, or financial settlements, turn to Pentana Stanton Lawyers. Our experienced family law team provides tailored legal strategies, ensuring the best possible outcomes for our clients. With a deep understanding of complex family law matters, we are committed to protecting your rights and achieving fair resolutions.
Contact us today for strategic legal representation tailored to your family law needs.
