Vaughton and Randle

In Vaughton & Randle [2014] FamCA 147, the Family Court of Australia considered parenting orders concerning a child, R, born in 2008. The dispute arose after the mother relocated with the child to Tasmania without notifying the father. The child was living with the mother in Tasmania and travelling to Adelaide on alternate weekends to spend time with the father. The proceedings involved allegations of family violence, which were not substantiated, and concerns about the mother's reluctance to foster a meaningful relationship between the child and the father.

The court was required to determine the best interests of the child, specifically with whom the child should live and spend time. This involved assessing the impact of the mother's relocation, the history of contraventions of previous orders, and the need to promote a positive relationship between the child and both parents. The court also considered the recommendations of a family consultant in reaching its determination.

Justice Berman applied the principles of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), particularly those relating to the best interests of the child, including the importance of the child having a meaningful relationship with both parents and the need to protect the child from harm. The court found that the mother's relocation to Tasmania was not in the child's best interests and that it was necessary for the child to return to Adelaide to facilitate a more balanced relationship with both parents. The court also considered the *Briginshaw v Briginshaw* standard in relation to the unsubstantiated allegations of family violence.

The court ordered the discharge of all previous parenting orders. It was ordered that the mother and father have equal shared parental responsibility for the child. Crucially, the mother was ordered to facilitate the child's permanent return to reside in Adelaide by 4 July 2014. The child was ordered to live with the mother, and detailed provisions were made for the child to spend time with the father, including during school terms, holidays, and on specific occasions such as birthdays and Christmas. The orders also included injunctions restraining the parties from altering the child's residential address without notice, denigrating the other parent, and requiring them to facilitate communication and information sharing regarding the child's welfare and education.