CURZON & CURZON

The case involved a mother seeking to relocate with her three children to the USA, which the father opposed. While the father did not propose himself as an alternative primary carer, the court considered the impact of the proposed relocation on the children's relationships with him. The court also had to determine the weight to be given to the children's views, particularly the eldest child's strong opposition to the move.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the proposed relocation to the USA was in the best interests of the children, and how to give effect to the children's views, especially the eldest child's stated preference. The court was required to balance the mother's desire to relocate with the children's right to maintain meaningful relationships with their father, in accordance with the principles of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth).

Austin J reasoned that the Act prioritises the children deriving benefit from meaningful filial relationships, rather than the creation of ideal ones. The court found that the relocation would likely not destroy or impair the children's relationships with their father. The eldest child's consistently held view against relocation was given significant weight, leading to orders that she could decide her living arrangements. The views of the younger children, which had fluctuated, were afforded less weight. The mother was restrained from relocating the children before a specified date to allow for the conclusion of the academic term.

The court made detailed orders regarding parental responsibility, residence, and time arrangements for each child. Notably, the mother was permitted to relocate with two of the children to the USA from a specified date, with extensive provisions for the children's time with the father both in Australia and overseas, and for communication between the children and the non-resident parent. Orders were also made concerning corporal punishment, denigration of parents, medical emergencies, and school reports.