HILDEBRAND & MATHISEN

In this case, the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia was asked to decide whether the child, X, should be allowed to relocate with her mother to City B, or whether she should remain living with her father in Region E. The mother wished to move to City B because she claimed her emotional health would suffer if she had to remain in Region E. The father opposed the move, arguing that it would negatively impact X's relationship with him.

The court considered the evidence and submissions from both parties, as well as expert opinions on X's best interests. The court found that X had strong and meaningful relationships with both parents, and that the mother's emotional health would indeed suffer if she were required to remain in Region E. However, the court also found that X's relationship with her father would be negatively impacted if she relocated to City B, as it would reduce the frequency and quality of their time together.

The court ultimately decided that X's best interests would be served by permitting the mother to relocate to City B with X. The court ordered that X should spend time with her father fortnightly between Thursday at 5.00 pm and until 4.00 pm on Sunday until X commences school in 2013. Thereafter, time for X with the father should be available to them on a fortnightly basis, but at the discretion of the father. The parties were also ordered to attend and complete appropriate post-separation parenting courses.

The court took into account the distance between City B and Region E, the commitments of the parties and X's schooling, the strong supportive families of both parents, the willingness to share the burden of travel, and the obvious commitment of both parents to X. The court found that such orders were reasonably practicable and in X's best interests.