SMG v RAM

This appeal concerned the relocation of children to a new home. The father appealed a decision of the trial judge that permitted the mother to relocate with the children. The appeal was heard by Ellis, Coleman, and Watt JJ.

The central legal issues before the Full Court were whether the trial judge had misdirected himself on the applicable legal test for relocation cases, particularly concerning the weight to be given to the diminution of the children's relationship with their father, and whether the trial judge had improperly shifted the onus onto the father to demonstrate why the relocation should not be permitted. The Court also considered whether the trial judge's findings were consistent with the principles established in *AMS v AIF*.

The Full Court found that the trial judge had not misdirected himself. While the trial judge identified the diminution of the children's relationship with their father as a significant factor, the Court held that this did not mean it was the sole or determining consideration. The mother's submissions, supported by the Full Court's interpretation of *AMS v AIF*, highlighted the importance of the custodial parent's freedom of movement. The Court concluded that the trial judge had considered all relevant factors for both proposed living arrangements and that his approach in paragraph 86 of his reasons was a realistic recognition of the children's best interests, which were intertwined with the parties' circumstances, including the mother's entitlement to freedom of movement. The Court also granted the father leave to amend his grounds of appeal, noting that the additional ground did not introduce new matters that would prejudice the mother.