Wynne and Oliver

In the matter of *Wynne and Oliver*, Stevenson J considered an application to vary consent orders concerning the residence of a child, F. The dispute centred on the mother's proposed relocation of F to New Zealand and the father's opposition to this move.

The court was required to determine whether to vary the existing consent orders to permit F to live in New Zealand with her mother. This involved considering the best interests of the child, specifically addressing the weight to be given to F's views, given her age and maturity, and assessing the potential impact of the relocation on her relationship with her father.

Stevenson J found no evidence of abuse, neglect, or family violence that would necessitate protection for F. The court accepted the opinion of the Family Consultant that F, aged just over six, was too young to fully comprehend the implications of relocating to New Zealand, despite expressing positive sentiments about the move. While F had conveyed to her mother a desire to move to New Zealand and made comments indicating an understanding of the relocation, the judge gave little weight to these statements, considering them to be expressions of a child's limited understanding rather than a mature, informed view. The court concluded that F enjoyed a meaningful relationship with both parents and would continue to benefit from their involvement in her life.

The court ordered that the consent orders made on 10 March 2010 be varied to include a provision that F live within a 20-kilometre radius of the Sydney central business district, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the parties. All other applications and responses were dismissed.