Sampson & Hartnett (No 10)

The Full Court of the Family Court of Australia, comprising Bryant CJ, Kay and Warnick JJ, heard an appeal concerning parenting orders made by Moore J. The dispute involved the mother's application for parenting orders, which the trial judge had granted, effectively requiring her to relocate to Sydney. The father appealed these orders.

The central legal issues before the Full Court were whether the trial judge had erred in making parenting orders that effectively required or prevented interstate relocation, and whether the judge had failed to consider the reasonable practicability of the mother being required to relocate to and live in Sydney, as mandated by ss 65DAA(1), (2) and (5) of the *Family Law Act 1975*. The Court also considered the implications of s 114(3) of the *Family Law Act* and s 92 of the *Constitution* on parenting orders with a coercive impact on relocation.

The Full Court allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge had failed to adequately consider the reasonable practicability of the mother's relocation. The Court reasoned that while the *Family Law Act* permits orders that may have the effect of requiring relocation, such orders must be demonstrably practicable for the parent. The Court set aside the specific orders made by the trial judge concerning the parenting arrangements and remitted the application for parenting orders back to the trial judge for redetermination. The Court also issued costs certificates to the mother, father, and the Independent Children's Lawyer, and ordered the mother to pay a sum towards the father's costs in relation to the property aspect of the appeal.