BEENEY & JENNER

This case concerned a dispute between a mother and father regarding the proposed relocation of the children. The mother resided in Melbourne with the children, while the father lived in Sydney. The father proposed that the mother relocate to Sydney with the children, but did not propose that the children live with him.

The court was required to determine the best interests of the children in the context of this proposed relocation. This involved an examination of the factors set out in section 60CC of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), including the objects and principles underpinning the legislation, and the primary and additional considerations relevant to determining the children's best interests.

The court reasoned that the best interests of the child are paramount and are to be assessed by weighing the factors outlined in section 60CC of the Act, guided by the objects and principles in section 60B. The primary considerations are the benefit of a meaningful relationship with both parents and the need to protect children from harm. The court noted that it cannot create meaningful relationships but can create circumstances that make them possible. In this instance, the court found that the children had a meaningful relationship with the mother, and the father's relationship had been impacted by geographical distance and the children's ages. The court also considered additional factors, including the children's views (which were not sought due to their age), the nature of the relationship with each parent, the extent to which each parent had participated in decision-making and spent time with the children, and the practical difficulties and expenses associated with the children spending time with each parent.

The court ordered that the father's time with the children would occur in Melbourne, with 14 days' written notice to the mother, and would be no more frequent than alternate weekends. The court varied previous orders to specify that the father's time would be "in Melbourne" after the word "father" and before the words "on alternate" where appearing in order 2. The court also noted that the father's proposal did not involve the children living with him, acknowledging that it was likely in the children's best interests to remain with their primary caregiver, the mother, given their ages and the father's limited time with the younger child.