Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) Heard in Canberra
The Case
This is a child custody case involving two children, a 14-year-old (X) and an 11-year-old girl (Y), whose parents had separated and initially shared their care equally under consent orders made in 2020.
Over time, the older child X gradually stopped spending time with his mother, eventually refusing contact altogether and ceasing to attend school entirely while living solely with his father.
The situation came to a head when the father’s new wife secured an overseas posting, and the father applied to relocate X internationally to join her, a move the mother strongly opposed.
The court first had to determine whether the changed circumstances were significant enough to justify revisiting the existing final orders, which it found they clearly were, given X’s near-total breakdown of contact with the mother and the proposed international relocation.
The Court found that, despite the serious concerns about X’s refusal to engage with his mother and the uncertainty about whether life overseas would meet his expectations, the only realistic option in X’s best interests at that time was to permit the relocation.
Preventing the move offered no meaningful path forward, X had made clear he would refuse any court-ordered contact with his mother, and blocking the relocation risked entrenching his hostility further.
The court noted that the best chance of preserving any future relationship between X and his mother lay in not forcing an outcome X would blame her for. Y, by contrast, was to remain in Australia with the mother, spending half of each school holiday period with her father overseas, with both parents sharing parental responsibility for her.
Orders were also made for family therapy and for the father to bear the costs of any international travel.
Key Takeaway
This case is an important reminder that Australian family courts do not approach international relocation as a separate legal category, the child’s best interests remain the single paramount consideration.
Where an older child has formed strong, entrenched views and a relationship with one parent has broken down completely, the court may permit relocation even on an interim basis, not because the outcome is ideal, but because it represents the least harmful path forward and the best realistic chance of preserving family relationships over the longer term.
Our Principal Aarti Arora was appointed to represent the Applicant.
