NASSER & HAKIMI

In the matter of NASSER & HAKIMI, Cleary J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application concerning parenting orders for three children. The mother, originally from a European country and having resided in Australia for 12 years, sought to relocate the children to Europe. The father had a history of mental illness, which was stabilised, and had perpetrated family violence against the mother, with the children having been exposed to this violence. The children currently had no contact with the father or his paternal grandmother, and a move to Europe would sever all contact with the father and his family. The mother also had a history of non-compliance with court orders.

The central legal issues before the Court were whether to permit the international relocation of the children to Europe, and if not, what parenting orders were in the best interests of the children, particularly in light of the family violence, the father's mental health history, and the existing lack of contact between the children and the father and his family. The Court was required to balance the mother's desire to relocate with the children's right to maintain a relationship with their father and paternal family, and to ensure the children's safety and well-being.

Cleary J determined that the relocation of the children to Europe was not in their best interests, primarily due to the complete loss of contact with the father and his family that would result, and the mother's history of non-compliance with orders. The Court applied the principles of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), focusing on the paramount consideration of the children's best interests. The reasoning involved assessing the risks and benefits of relocation, the impact on the children's relationships, and the capacity of each parent to facilitate a relationship with the other. The Court also considered the need for a carefully managed transition of time spent between the children and the father, commencing with supervised contact and gradually increasing to unsupervised periods.

The Court ordered that the children live with the mother but restrained her from establishing their residence in any country other than Australia. The mother was granted sole parental responsibility for long-term welfare decisions, while both parents shared day-to-day responsibility when the children were with them. A detailed schedule of time spent with the father was established, commencing with supervised contact through a service and progressively increasing to unsupervised time, including extended weekends and holidays. The paternal grandmother was permitted to attend supervised visits with the children when they were with the father. The Court also made orders regarding communication, overseas travel limitations, and restraints on disparaging remarks about the other parent.