Netis & Kipling

In the matter of *Netis & Kipling*, heard by Tree J, the court considered a mother's application to relocate with the child to the United States of America, which was opposed by the father. The father sought orders for the child to live with the mother and spend substantial and significant time with him. The court also addressed interim property settlement issues, where the wife sought a partial property settlement of $50,000, and the husband sought a reduction in an embargoed sum.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the mother's proposed relocation to the United States was in the child's best interests, and whether the mother's parenting capacity would be adversely affected if she were not permitted to relocate. The court also had to determine the appropriate interim property orders, including the wife's request for a partial property settlement and the husband's request to vary an embargoed sum.

Tree J reasoned that the greatest risk of harm to the child was exposure to parental conflict, and that relocation would not shield the child from this conflict. The court found that it was reasonably practicable for the mother to remain living in Australia and that her parenting capacity would not be adversely affected by remaining. Consequently, the court determined that relocation was not in the child's best interests. Regarding parental responsibility, the court found that the parties' communication and conflict would not support equal shared parental responsibility, and therefore ordered that the mother have sole parental responsibility for major long-term issues. In relation to property, the court declined to make an order for partial property settlement but reduced the embargoed sum from $70,000 to $50,000, adjourning property proceedings until after the husband received his disability payment.