GAIZE & GAIZE (No.2)

In *Gaize & Gaize (No.2)*, Howard J of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia considered an urgent interim relocation application brought by the mother, who was the primary carer of the parties' two young children. The mother sought to relocate the children to Sydney for approximately 10.5 months to complete her healthcare worker training, proposing that the children would spend time with the father every second weekend in Brisbane at her expense. The father, in response, sought for the children to live with him should the mother relocate, and the mother had indicated she would not relocate without the children.

The central legal issues before the Court were whether to grant the mother's application for interim relocation of the children to Sydney, and whether to grant the father's subsequent application to adjourn the proceedings and reopen the evidence to obtain an updated family report or memorandum. The father's application for adjournment was made as the Court was in the process of delivering its ex tempore judgment.

Howard J reasoned that the mother's proposal had evolved significantly from the time of the family report, particularly concerning the quantum of time the children would spend with the father. While not bound by expert evidence, the Court considered the available material. The urgency of the mother's training, commencing in February 2020, meant that any adjournment would likely defeat her application. Consequently, the application to adjourn and reopen the evidence, made during the delivery of judgment, was refused.

The Court ordered that the mother's application for temporary relocation be granted, allowing the children to relocate to Sydney with her for the specified period. The Court incorporated its reasons from the initial judgment and the transcript of the hearing on 31 January 2020 into its final reasons.