WICKENBY & WICKENBY

In the matter of *Wickenby & Wickenby*, O'Reilly J of the Family Court of Australia considered competing parenting orders sought by a mother and father concerning their child. The mother sought to relocate the child's residence to Western Australia, where her partner resided and with whom she proposed to marry. The father lived near Brisbane. While judgment in the principal proceedings was reserved, the mother applied for a stay of judgment pending the hearing of a newly filed contravention application.

The court was required to determine the legal issues surrounding the mother's application for relocation of the child's residence, parental responsibility, and whether to grant a stay of judgment in relation to certain parenting matters. Specifically, the court had to consider the child's best interests, including the meaning of a meaningful relationship, the need to protect the child from harm, and whether proposals for the child's time with each parent were substantial, significant, and reasonably practicable. The court also had to address the procedural question of whether to stay the judgment in the principal proceedings pending the outcome of the mother's contravention application.

O'Reilly J reasoned that the child's best interests were paramount. The court made orders for equal shared parental responsibility for major long-term issues, including education, religious and cultural upbringing, health, name, and significant changes to living arrangements. The court found that the mother's proposal for relocation to Western Australia was in the child's best interests, and therefore ordered that the mother may relocate the child's residence. However, in light of the mother's contravention application, the court ordered a stay of judgment in relation to all other parenting matters, particularly the child's time with and communication with the father, pending further trial directions. Interim orders were made for the child's time with the father until further order.