Kaule & Brown

The case involved a dispute between the mother and father regarding final orders concerning their young child and property settlement. The mother sought to relocate from Melbourne to Brisbane with the child to pursue an employment opportunity and be closer to her family, citing a lack of suitable job prospects in Melbourne. The father, who had professional and other ties to Melbourne, opposed the relocation and desired the child to learn French due to family connections. Both parties were deemed competent and appropriate parents.

The court was required to determine the best interests of the child in relation to the proposed interstate relocation and the division of the parties' property. Specifically, the court had to consider the likely effect of any changes in the child's circumstances, including separation from either parent or other significant individuals, and the impact of the proposed relocation on the child's relationship with his father. The court also had to consider whether it was just and equitable to alter the parties' property interests, given the circumstances of their cohabitation and property acquisition.

In relation to the child, the court found that the mother's proposed relocation would represent a significant change in the child's life, involving separation from his father and a reduction in time spent with both parents. The court noted that while the child would have the support of his maternal grandparents, their role was that of grandparents, not parents. The court considered the father's desire for joint decision-making regarding the child's care. Regarding property, the court found that given the short duration of the cohabitation, the parties' financial independence during the relationship, and the acquisition of all property before the relationship commenced, it was not just and equitable to alter their property interests.

Consequently, the court ordered that the child remain in Melbourne with the father, with a gradual build-up of overnight time to equal time with the father. The mother was restrained from relocating the child from the Greater Melbourne Metropolitan area without the father's consent or a court order. All previous orders were discharged, and all extant applications, including those for property settlement and spousal maintenance, were dismissed.