Relocation Cases

Back

Increasingly cases are coming before the Courts where one party seeks to relocate with children interstate or overseas from where they were living after separation. This may be for a number of reasons including one party repartnering with someone living elsewhere, financial reasons, better job opportunities elsewhere, or to be close to family and friends.

The difficulty with relocation cases is that if the proposal of the party seeking to relocate is accepted, then it can place limits on the relationship between the child and the other parent and the child’s right to know and have contact with that parent.

The High Court decision in U v U has confirmed how relocation cases are to be dealt with.

In any children’s case, the paramount consideration is the best interests of the child. This is difficult to determine when the Court has to weigh up the child’s right to know and have contact with each parent, and the benefit to the child’s interests in living with a parent who may be disadvantaged if not permitted to relocate.

The Court is required to examine the available options and determine which is in the child’s best interests. This was confirmed in U v U. However, the case is significant as the Court said that it should examine more than the usual two proposals put to it. The four proposals it will now examine comprise: -

1. the child relocate with the parent with the primary care, and the other parent stay behind;
2. the child not relocate and remain in the care of the parent who proposed the relocation, and this parent not relocate;
3. there be a change of primary care of the child, and the parent who proposed the relocation proceed with the move without the child; and
4. the child relocate with the parent who proposed the move, and the other parent also relocate.

In addition to establishing bona fide reasons for relocation with a child, it will be necessary for parties to now address more options, before the Court can decide what is in the child’s best interests.

Back