Keavney & Mohlis

In the matter of *Keavney & Mohlis*, heard by O'Shannessy J, the applicant father sought interim orders for the mother and child to relocate. The dispute centred on the mother's alleged unilateral relocation of their child's residence and school without adequate consultation with the father.

The court was required to determine whether the father's application for interim relocation orders should be granted. This involved considering the principles governing unilateral relocations and the court's discretion in interim parenting matters, particularly in light of the child's best interests and the parents' statutory obligations.

O'Shannessy J dismissed the father's application for interim relocation orders. The court applied principles from *Morgan & Miles* and *Stringer & Nissen (No. 2)*, which establish that while a unilateral relocation does not fetter the court's jurisdiction, it can be a factor in determining the child's welfare. The court noted that a parent's failure to consult and make a genuine effort to agree on moves that significantly affect the child's time with the other parent, as required by section 65DAC of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), can be detrimental. However, on the interim hearing, the court could not make a finding that the mother had acted improperly in supporting the child's relationship with the father or in her approach to relocation and school changes. The court also ordered that existing orders regarding the discharge of a previous order and the provision of notice for future relocations and school changes be amended to reinforce the consultation requirements of section 65DAC.