Webster and Cody (No 2)

In *Webster & Cody (No. 2)*, the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the father, Mr Webster, for his two children to relocate to the United States. The mother, Ms Cody, was the respondent. The Independent Children’s Lawyer was represented by Legal Aid NSW. The court was required to determine the children's best interests in relation to the proposed relocation and to make final parenting orders.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the father's application for the children to live with him in the United States should be granted, with the overarching consideration being the children's best interests as mandated by the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The court also had to consider the existing strained relationship between the children and the father, the poor communication between the parents, and the expert evidence presented regarding the children's welfare.

Justice Ryan dismissed the father's application for relocation, finding that the children's best interests were served by them continuing to live with their mother in Australia. The court noted the poor relationship the children had with their father and ordered a graduated basis for the children to spend time with him. While both parents were granted parental responsibility, it was stipulated that this responsibility need not be exercised jointly, and the mother was given sole parental responsibility for educational decisions. The court's reasoning was informed by the history of the parties' separation, the mother's previous relocation of the children to Australia with the father's consent, and the impact of these decisions on the children's relationships.

The court made orders for the children to live with the mother and detailed specific arrangements for the children to spend time with the father, both in Australia and during holidays in the United States. These orders included provisions for travel, communication, and the sharing of information regarding the children's well-being. The court also made orders restraining the parents from discussing the proceedings with the children and from criticising each other in their presence, and directed the Independent Children's Lawyer to explain the orders to the children.