CABANEL & GABBAIR

This case concerned an application by the mother for permission to relocate with her two young children, X and Y, from Region A to Far North Queensland. The father opposed the relocation. The matter came before Judge Small in the Family Court of Australia.

The court was required to determine whether the mother should be permitted to relocate the children to Far North Queensland, and consequently, what parenting orders should be made in relation to the children's residence, parental responsibility, and time with each parent. A key issue was the assessment of the children's best interests, particularly in light of the primary considerations outlined in section 60CC(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), namely the benefit of a meaningful relationship with both parents and the need to protect the children from harm.

In reaching its decision, the court considered the evidence presented, including reports from a children's contact centre and a family report. The court acknowledged that the children had a meaningful relationship with both parents, describing the relationship with the mother as primary carer and the relationship with the father as "important, significant and valuable," despite the father's time with the children having been irregular and at times supervised. The court also noted allegations of psychological harm by both parents and a specific allegation of assault by the father, which had been investigated by authorities without further action. The court applied the principle that the need to protect a child from harm must be given greater weight than the benefit of a meaningful relationship, as stipulated in section 60CC(2A) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth).

The court ordered that all previous parenting orders be discharged. The mother was granted sole parental responsibility for the children's education, health, and medical treatment, with a requirement to inform the father of major decisions in these areas within 48 hours. The parties were to have equal shared parental responsibility otherwise. The children were ordered to live with the mother, who was restrained by injunction from relocating them more than 200 kilometres from Town M, Victoria, without the father's written agreement. Detailed provisions were made for the children's time with the father, including specific arrangements for weekends, school holidays, and future relocations. The court also made orders regarding communication between parents, the conduct of parents in the presence of the children, and the father's obligation to seek psychological treatment.