Faretta & Laclair

In the matter of MLC 9742 of 2020, Ms Faretta (the Applicant) sought orders to relocate with her child, X, born in 2018, to Suburb C. Ms Laclair (the Respondent) opposed this relocation, seeking orders for X to remain in City B. The dispute concerned the best interests of X, particularly in light of the Applicant's desire to move to be with her partner, Ms E, and the potential impact on X's relationship with the Respondent and her extended family. The matter came before Justice Bender.

The primary legal issue before the Court was to determine the best interests of X, as mandated by section 60CC of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). This involved considering various factors, including the likely effect of any changes in X's circumstances, the practical difficulties and expense of maintaining contact with both parents, the capacity of each parent to provide for X's needs, and X's age and background. Specifically, the Court had to weigh the Applicant's desire for relocation and potential for greater personal happiness against the significant disruption it would cause to X's established relationships and routines in City B.

Justice Bender's reasoning focused on the evidence presented regarding X's current circumstances and the likely consequences of relocation. The Court noted the exemplary co-parenting relationship between the parties and the extensive support network X enjoyed in City B, including her parents, their partners, and extended family. The Family Report Writer was adamant that relocation was not in X's best interests, highlighting the importance of maintaining the existing shared care arrangement for X's continued thriving. The Court found that while relocation might enhance the Applicant's personal happiness, it would inevitably and substantially reduce X's time with the Respondent and limit the Respondent's capacity to be actively involved in X's life. The Court also considered the practical difficulties and expense of maintaining the current level of shared care if X were to live in Suburb C, particularly as X progressed through school.

The Court ordered that the parties have equal shared parental responsibility for X and that X remain living within the City B region. X was to live with the parties on an equal basis, with specific arrangements detailed for the period before and after commencing school. The orders also included provisions for electronic communication, changeover locations, and interstate and international travel. The Court also noted that neither party was pursuing applications regarding stored donor sperm or embryos, but that the Applicant was willing to transfer her rights to the Respondent, and vice versa, if requested.