Farrington & Belkis (Interim Change of Residence)

Farrington & Belkis concerned an interim application for a change of residence of the parties' two children. The application was heard in the Family Court of Australia. The dispute centred on the interim relocation of the children from their current residence in Sydney to Melbourne. The primary legal issues were whether the relocation would be in the children's best interests, and if so, under what conditions. The court had to consider the statutory framework provided by the Family Law Act 1975, particularly sections 60CA, 60CB, 60CC(2), and 60CC(3), and the definition of "family violence" in section 4AB. The court had to weigh the children's best interests against the competing interests of the parents.

The court emphasised that the paramount consideration was the best interests of the children, guided by section 60CA of the Act. The court noted the specific requirement to prioritise the protective provisions in section 60CC(2)(b), which includes the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm. The court also highlighted the importance of considering the risk of exposure to abuse, neglect, or family violence. The court referenced Full Court decisions that underscored the importance of focusing on the outcome that most likely promotes the children's best interests, rather than reciting all statutory considerations indiscriminately. The court concluded that the relocation was in the children's best interests, provided certain conditions were met, including supervised contact with the non-resident parent and adherence to a proposed parenting plan.

The court ordered that the children could relocate to Melbourne, subject to specific conditions designed to safeguard their well-being. These conditions included a detailed parenting plan, supervised contact with the non-resident parent, and the requirement for both parents to attend a parenting program. The court's determination was based on the specific circumstances of the case and the need to balance the children's best interests with the protective provisions of the Act. The decision reflected the court's commitment to ensuring that the interim orders were in the children's best interests, while also recognising the importance of the children's relationship with both parents.