ESSA & SALTER

In the Family Court of Australia, Loughnan J considered an application by the father seeking the mother to restore the child to the Sydney metropolitan area, following her relocation with the child to the F Region. The father's application was not supported by the Independent Children's Lawyer. The court also addressed the father's request for the mother to sign a freedom of information authority concerning her correspondence with the Department of Human Services, and the mother's application for an injunction restraining the parents from recording or videotaping the handover of the child.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the father had established grounds to require the mother to relocate the child back to Sydney, the scope and relevance of the father's request for information from the Department of Human Services, and whether an injunction should be granted to prevent the recording of child handovers. In relation to the relocation, the court was required to consider the principles established in cases such as *Rice v Asplund* and the potential for further significant change to the child's living arrangements. Regarding the information request, the court had to determine the relevance of documents dating back to 2008, seven years before the parties commenced living together, and apply the principles articulated in cases like *Elias*.

On the relocation application, the court found that requiring the mother to relocate in these circumstances would impose an additional unnecessary significant change on the child and, on balance, it was not appropriate to make such an order. Regarding the freedom of information request, while the mother's income could be relevant, the court limited the period of inquiry to commence from 2015, rather than the 2008 date sought by the father, to avoid an unduly broad scope. The court also determined that recording child handovers was not something it should encourage and therefore granted the mother's application for an injunction restraining both parents from recording these events.

The father's relocation application was dismissed. Orders were made concerning the child's time with the father, including specific arrangements for different age groups and adjustments for public holidays and birthdays. The mother was ordered to provide the father with her mobile number and to give at least one month's written notice of any change of address. The parties were directed to use a communication book and the mother was to provide advance notice of the child's enrolment in childcare. The mother was also ordered to provide the father with details of the child's medical practitioners and vaccination history, and to authorise these practitioners to communicate with the father. Pending further order, the parties were restrained from discussing the proceedings or denigrating each other to or in the presence of the child, and the mother was specifically restrained from discussing the proceedings with an older child, D. The mother was ordered to sign the Authority to the Department of Human Services, with the period of inquiry commencing from 1 September 2015. Documents provided to the mother's solicitor pursuant to an FOI request were to be produced to the Court. Finally, pending further order, both parents were restrained from recording the handover of the child.