RATKINE & DANNETT

In the matter of *Ratkine & Dannett*, heard before Rose J, the dispute concerned an interim application by the mother to relocate the three children of the marriage from Sydney to B, a regional town in New South Wales. The father sought an interim injunction to restrain the mother from removing the children from Sydney and their current schools.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether to grant an interim injunction restraining the mother from relocating the children and changing their schools, pending a substantive hearing. This involved considering the mother's unilateral actions in relation to the proposed relocation and school changes.

Rose J reasoned that the mother had acted unilaterally in pursuing the relocation and changes to the children's schooling. This unilateral conduct was a significant factor in the Court's determination and could not be disregarded simply because the mother had provided notice of her intentions. The Court considered the evidence before it in making its decision.

The Court ordered that the mother be restrained from relocating the three children from their current residence in Sydney and from removing them from their current schools without the written consent of the father and the independent children’s lawyer, or by further order of the Court. Additionally, the mother was ordered to provide specific documents relating to employment and school enrolment in B to the father's solicitor and the independent children's lawyer at least seven days prior to the substantive hearing.