Dakota & Stevens

The case of *Dakota & Stevens* concerned parenting orders for three children, X, Y, and Z. The mother sought to have the children reside with her in London, having relocated them there from Sydney in January 2020. This occurred despite a UK court's determination under the Hague Convention that the children should be returned to Australia. The father maintained that he had not consented to the children's permanent retention in the UK. The dispute involved complex issues arising from the acrimonious relationship between the parents, the children's expressed wishes to remain in London, and the father's desire for their return to Australia.

The court was required to determine several key legal issues. Firstly, whether the father had consented to the children's permanent relocation to the UK. Secondly, the court had to consider the children's views, particularly those of the eldest child, X, who has special needs including high-functioning autism, and the extent to which these views were genuinely held or influenced by the mother. Thirdly, the court needed to assess the best interests of the children, weighing the mother's refusal to return to Australia against the father's proposals for the children to live with him and his partner, and considering the potential impact on the children's relationships with both parents.

In its reasoning, the court applied the principles of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), particularly section 60CC(2A), which mandates giving greater weight to the benefit of a child having a meaningful relationship with both parents. The court adopted a prospective approach to assessing this consideration, as outlined in *McCall & Clark* [2009] FamCAFC 92. The court found that the father had not consented to the children's permanent retention in the UK. While acknowledging the mother's genuine belief that a return to Australia would jeopardise her relationship with X, the court considered the views of the older children, noting they had been significantly influenced by the mother. The court ultimately found that the proposals put forward by the Independent Children’s Lawyer offered the best prospect of re-establishing the relationship between the father and the eldest child.

The court made orders discharging all previous parenting orders. It was ordered that the parties have equal shared parental responsibility for the children. The children were to live with the mother in the United Kingdom, with detailed provisions for the children to spend significant block time with their father, both in the UK and Australia, and for reciprocal time with the mother. The orders also included provisions for communication between parents and children, school information sharing, and injunctions against denigration of either parent.