CASSIDY & SIBLY

This case concerned an application by the father for final orders regarding the living arrangements of the child, R, with the father in Australia. The mother sought orders permitting the child to relocate to Canada, where she and R's sibling resided. The father lived in Australia, and the mother had permanent residency in Australia but no similar right in Canada. The mother had previously taken the child to Canada without the father's permission, leading to Hague Proceedings that resulted in the child's return to Australia. The mother also made allegations of domestic violence against the father.

The court was required to determine the best interests of the child, R, in light of the proposed relocation and the existing family violence allegations. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility under section 61DA of the relevant Act had been rebutted, and if so, what form of parental responsibility and living arrangements would best serve the child's welfare. The court also had to assess the practicalities and potential detriment of any change in the child's settled circumstances in Australia.

Dawe J found that the child was settled in Australia and that a further change to his care arrangements would be detrimental to his welfare. The court considered the primary considerations under section 60CC of the Act, including the benefit of a meaningful relationship with both parents and the need to protect the child from harm. Given the geographical distance and the mother's previous actions, the court determined that equal shared parental responsibility was not practical in the immediate future. The court noted the father's strong bond with the child and his capacity to provide care, as well as the child's adaptation to his school and social environment in Darwin.

The court ordered that the father have sole parental responsibility for R and that R live with the father in Australia. The child was to spend time with the mother in Australia, with specific provisions for holidays and communication. The court also made orders for shared care arrangements should the mother relocate to Australia permanently, and for communication between the child and the mother. The mother was restrained from removing the child from Australia without consent or court order until December 2015.