Sturton and Cellar (No 3)

The case involved a mother seeking to relocate with her child to New Zealand, while the father sought for the child to remain in Australia with gradually increasing time spent with him, ultimately aiming for equal shared care. The mother was the child's primary caregiver and attachment figure, with limited financial and emotional support in Australia. While the child had a good relationship with her father, he reportedly lacked insight into her needs and had exhibited disrespectful and abusive behaviour towards the mother.

The court was required to determine the child's primary residence and the extent of parental responsibility each parent would hold. A key issue was whether international relocation to New Zealand was in the child's best interests, considering the existing parental dynamics and the child's relationship with both parents. The court also had to consider the father's request for equal shared parental responsibility against the mother's claim for sole parental responsibility.

Forrest J found that it was in the child's best interests to permit the relocation to New Zealand with the mother, while also facilitating time with the father in Australia and, if he chose, in New Zealand. The court determined that an order for equal shared parental responsibility was not appropriate in these circumstances. Instead, the mother was granted sole parental responsibility, with an obligation to consult the father on major long-term decisions, excluding changes to the child's family name, for which they would share equal responsibility. The judgment detailed specific arrangements for the child's time with the father both before and after the relocation, including provisions for communication and information sharing between the parents.