BALSANO & LABANE

This matter concerned parenting orders for the child, X, born in 2014, between the applicant and the respondent. The dispute involved a proposed relocation by the respondent, which was initially restrained by interim orders preventing either party from relocating the child more than 15 kilometres from Region E. The proceedings were set down for trial, with property and spousal maintenance matters already resolved. The respondent's circumstances had changed significantly, including the sale of a jointly owned property and her subsequent move to new premises approximately 144 kilometres from Region E. Allegations of family violence were also raised by the respondent immediately before the trial, although the Department of Health and Human Services had closed its files in relation to its investigations.

The court was required to determine the best interests of the child, X, in light of the proposed relocation and the existing interim orders. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the relocation was in the child's best interests, given the respondent was the primary carer. The court also needed to balance the child's need for a meaningful relationship with both parents against the practicalities of the respondent's proposed move and any allegations of family violence. The ultimate aim was to craft orders that accommodated the child's relationship with the applicant while addressing the respondent's role as primary carer.

The court exercised its broad discretion under section 65D of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), which mandates that the best interests of the child are the paramount consideration. This involved an overall assessment of various statutory and case-specific factors, including the benefit of a meaningful relationship with both parents and the need to protect the child from harm. The court found that the relocation was in the child's best interests, primarily because the respondent was the primary carer. The court's reasoning indicated a focus on accommodating the child's relationship with the applicant within the new arrangements.

The court made orders for equal shared parental responsibility, with the child to live with the respondent. The orders detailed specific arrangements for the child to spend time with the applicant, including during school terms, holidays, and special occasions, with provisions for communication and travel. Notably, the respondent was restrained from changing the child's residence more than 5 kilometres from Town C, and measures were put in place to prevent the child's removal from Australia. The application filed on 2 September 2019 was dismissed, and all previous parenting orders were discharged.