Mallahan & Mallahan

In the matter of *Mallahan & Mallahan*, Murphy J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the mother for permission to relocate with the parties' two children interstate. The father opposed this relocation, proposing instead a shared care arrangement that would necessitate the children remaining geographically proximate to him. The dispute centred on the children's living arrangements and the extent of each parent's future involvement in their lives.

The court was required to determine whether to grant the mother's application for relocation and, consequently, to make orders regarding the children's living arrangements and time spent with each parent. Key legal issues included the application of the principles governing relocation cases, particularly in light of the children's awareness of their mother's unhappiness, and the determination of appropriate parenting orders, including the nature of parental responsibility and the practicalities of shared time in an interstate context.

Murphy J applied the principles established in cases such as *MRR & GR* (2010) 263 ALR 368, considering the best interests of the children. The court found that the mother's significant unhappiness in Queensland, coupled with the children's awareness and concern for her well-being, weighed heavily in favour of permitting the relocation. Despite the presence of parental conflict, the court determined that the benefit of continued parental input from both parents outweighed this conflict, leading to an order for equal shared parental responsibility. The court also considered the concept of "reasonable practicability" in relation to the father's proposed shared care regime, ultimately ordering that the children live with the mother, including upon her relocation to Victoria, while also making detailed provisions for the children to spend significant and meaningful time with the father during school holidays and long weekends.