Percy and Heffernan

This matter concerned parenting orders sought by the Mother and Father regarding their child, X. The dispute primarily revolved around the Mother's request to relocate with X to the far north coast of New South Wales, which the Father opposed. The case was heard by Judge Neville.

The central legal issue before the court was to determine what parenting orders were in the best interests of the child, X, pursuant to section 60CA of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). This involved assessing the impact of the proposed relocation on X's relationship with both parents, particularly her relationship with the Father, and considering the practicalities of the Mother's financial situation and employment prospects in relation to her proposed living arrangements.

Judge Neville accepted the unreserved comments and observations of the Family Consultant, whose reports indicated that the Mother's relocation request did not prioritise X's need for a relationship with her Father and that a significant distance would negatively impact their relationship. The court also considered the Mother's financial difficulties in remaining within a specified area and her need to seek employment further afield. Ultimately, the court found that X's best interests were served by maintaining a meaningful relationship with both parents, supported by research indicating positive developmental outcomes for children with such relationships.

The court made orders that the Mother was not permitted to move to the far north coast of New South Wales but was permitted to move to an alternative, unspecified location with X. The Mother was restrained from moving with X outside a 50-kilometre radius of a specified area, with a provision for a permitted move within a 50-kilometre radius of another specified area upon 21 days' written notice to the Father. The parties were granted equal shared parental responsibility, with X to live with the Mother and spend time with and communicate with the Father according to a detailed schedule that evolved over several years. Further orders addressed practical matters such as changeovers, notification of illness, child restraints, international travel, communication with educational and medical providers, notification of changes in contact details, and prohibitions against denigrating the other parent or involving the child in disputes. The child was to be registered or referred to by the surname 'Percy'.