CARVER & SANSFORD

This case involved an application by the mother, Ms Carver, for permission to relocate with the parties' four-year-old son, X, to Adelaide. The father, Mr Sansford, opposed this relocation. Both parents presented evidence of psychological vulnerabilities, and the court was required to consider allegations of family violence made by both parties against each other.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the mother ought to be permitted to relocate with the child to Adelaide, and how the child's best interests, as defined by the primary considerations of the benefit of a meaningful relationship with both parents and the need to protect the child from harm, should be balanced in this context. The court also had to consider the impact of the parents' respective psychological vulnerabilities and the allegations of family violence on the child's welfare.

The court applied the principles outlined in section 60CC(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), focusing on the benefit of a meaningful relationship with both parents and the need to protect the child from harm. It considered the qualitative nature of a "meaningful relationship," emphasising the quality of time spent rather than the quantity. The court noted that allegations of family violence by both parents, if true, would negatively impact their ability to provide a positive role model for the child. The mother's evidence of the child's distress and nightmares following time with the father, and the subsequent involvement of a counselling service and police, were significant factors in the court's assessment of risk.

The court ordered that previous parenting orders be discharged and that the parents have equal shared parental responsibility. The child was to live with the mother. Crucially, the mother was restrained from relocating the child more than 100 kilometres from the father's home until 31 December 2021. From 1 January 2022, relocation to Adelaide was permitted, subject to the mother providing documentary evidence by 30 November 2021 that she had been accepted into a university course in Adelaide, the child was enrolled in a metropolitan Adelaide primary school, and she had secured a suitable lease. Failure to meet these conditions would result in the relocation restriction continuing indefinitely. The orders also detailed specific arrangements for the child's time with the father, both before and after the potential relocation, and included provisions for communication, notification of illness, and parental involvement in the child's schooling.