BANFIELD & OAKFORD

In the matter of *Banfield & Oakford*, Judge Howard of the Family Court of Australia considered parenting arrangements for two young children, X and Y. The dispute arose after the mother unilaterally relocated with the children from City B to Town C, a seven-hour drive away, following the parents' separation. The father remained in City B.

The court was required to determine the children's best interests, with a particular focus on fostering a meaningful relationship with both parents. Key legal issues included the weight to be given to the children's existing attachments and relationships with each parent, especially in light of the significant geographical distance created by the mother's relocation. The court also considered the mother's attitude towards the father's involvement in the children's lives and whether the proposed arrangements would minimise the likelihood of further litigation.

Judge Howard applied section 60CC of the Family Law Act 1975, emphasising the primary considerations of the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both parents. The court noted the children's secure attachment to their mother, who was the primary carer. However, significant concern was raised regarding the younger child, Y, and his attachment to the father. Expert evidence suggested that Y's relationship with his father was not yet capable of being described as "meaningful" due to his young age and the limited contact since the relocation. The court inferred a lack of insight from the mother regarding her responsibility to foster the children's relationship with their father, which was considered a deficiency in her approach to parenthood. The court also considered that permitting the mother to remain in Town C could lead to future applications by the father for increased time with the children.

The court ordered that each party was to provide a proposed Final Order to the other by 4 June 2020, and that the parties should attempt to reach an agreed position by 11 June 2020. If agreement could not be reached, the matter was to be listed for a mention, with both parties to attend personally.