Reforming Relocation Law: A Reply to Prof. Thompson

• Published date: 01 January 2015
• Date: 01 January 2015
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12130

REFORMING RELOCATION LAW: A REPLY TO PROF. THOMPSON

Patrick Parkinson and Judy Cashmore

This article provides a response to Prof. Thomson’s critique, noting many points of agreement and also the broader consensus

that is emerging among experts in the field. The research evidence, and the wider body of knowledgeon children’s well-being

generally,suppor ts the proposition that relocation is a risk factor for children after parental separation but providesno support

for a general presumption either in favor of, nor against, relocation. Nor should it be assumed that the interests of children are

the same as those of their primary caregiver.We defend our three questions arguing the need in an adult-centric debate to focus

resolutely on children’s interests rather than on adult rights. Both Prof. Thompson’s approach and our own involve guided

decision making with the child’s best interests as the paramount consideration—his through weak presumptions based upon

research about how judges respond to relocation issues and ours through focused questions based on research on how parents

and children respond to relocations issues. Wedo not consider that codifying the existing practices of the courts represents real

reform. We identify various risks involved in using presumptions, but note that, in jurisdictions with limited publicly funded

resources for individual case assessment, presumptions, burdens or guidelines may be needed to offer rough justice to

impecunious parents.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:

• Notes points of emerging agreement on relocation within the research community

• Explores the differences between the use of presumptions and focused questions and highlights the role of empirical

research of the lived experience of children and families postrelocation disputes

• Identifies how the level of public resourcing for the familylaw system may impact upon decisions about the substance

of the law concerning relocation

Keywords: Children;Custody;Family Law Policy and Decision Making;Mobility;MovingAway;Parenting Arrangements;

Presumptions;and Relocation

Rollie Thompson’s commentary is a very helpful contribution to the burgeoning literature on

relocation. Our article and Professor Thompson’s response represent just some of the fruit of a

broader dialogue that has been occurring now for about 5 years between researchers on relocation,

mainly in the English-speaking world, at various conferences and other fora. As we noted in our

article, to which Professor Thompson responds, this dialogue has been strongly encouraged by

leading members of the judiciary around the English-speaking world (Diamond, 2013; World

Congress, 2013).

These discussions and exchanges of ideas have been very productive. It is time to broaden this

dialogue and to see whether a greater consensus can be developed among the lawyers and social

scientists working in this field. That would undoubtedly be beneficial to both parents and children

everywhere.

AREAS OF AGREEMENT ON POLICY

There is actually much more agreement between us than might be apparent from the fiery opening

to Professor Thompson’s article. Notwithstanding the impression that the reader might get of deep

disagreement between us, we find considerable value in his ideas and he offers support for some of

ours. He thinks we disagree on some issues because of a misunderstanding of our position. This reply

provides an opportunity to articulate where we agree, to clarify where Professor Thompson has not

Correspondence: patrick.parkinson@sydney.edu.au

FAMILY COURT REVIEW, Vol. 53 No. 1, January 2015 56–65

© 2015 Association of Familyand Conciliation Cour ts