A mother who secretly moved to Tasmania during a custody battle has been ordered to return to the mainland, possibly back to the Canberra region.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
And a judge has warned the woman could be placed on a bond and fined if she breaches court orders again.
The couple split in 2010 before the birth and the mother clandestinely moved to Tasmania in July 2012 without telling the father or the Federal Circuit Court.
She continued the deception for nine months. This included flying from Hobart to Sydney and then driving with the maternal grandparents to visit the father.
The Canberra father then sought a court order to have the mother and child returned to the mainland so he could spend more time with his daughter.
The mother fought to stay in Hobart but agreed to fortnightly visits for the father, despite conceding the yearly cost for air travel would be about $12,000.
She told the court she moved to Tasmania because she feared the father. The court heard she had taken out an interim apprehended violence order against the man, claiming he tried to sexually assault her in February 2011.
The order was later thrown out by a NSW court without hearing.
Federal Circuit Court judge Warwick Neville, in a recently published judgment, found the woman's allegations ''completely implausible. I do not believe there is any evidence to support the claims of concern for her safety,'' the judge wrote.
The woman also told the court her living in Hobart would not pose a ''significant logistical barrier'' to the father spending consistent time with his daughter.
But Judge Neville said ''such statements, respectfully, defy logic and common sense''.
He found the mother's attitude to the father had been ''extremely oppositional and in conflict'', which included not notifying him of the birth, not including his name on the child's birth certificate, and ''an attitude of obstruction against the father''.
Judge Neville ordered the mother to return to the Canberra region or another unidentified location and restrained her from moving outside a radius of 50 kilometres without written notice.
He also expanded the father's access to his daughter, including fortnightly visits.
''All of the judicial warnings have been flouted by the mother in this case,'' the judge wrote. ''The transgressions detailed have, in my view, ultimately compromised the child's best interests.''