International Relocation
By christopher ragozzino, senior associate
It is not unusual for separated parents to wish to return to their country of origin or relocate with their children to another country for professional advancement. Parents have freedom of mobility, but this always needs to be viewed in the prism of, and is subject to, the best interests of the children.
Relocation to New Zealand
A decision of Justice Berman (as he then was) of Division 1 of the Federal Circuit and Circuit Court of Australia in the matter of Wedekind & Nakano (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1F 5, the Court found in favour of the Mother who brought an application to relocate to New Zealand with two children.
The facts
In this matter, the Mother was originally from New Zealand but moved to Australia prior to the relationship commencing. The parties met and commenced cohabitation in Adelaide, and remained living there.
Following the parties’ separation, the Mother travelled with the children to New Zealand and elected to remain there. Proceedings were initiated at the instigation of the Father for the return of the children pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, with the Mother ultimately returning to Australia by consent.
Proceedings were then instituted by the Father seeking parenting orders. The Mother sought orders that she be permitted to relocate with the children to New Zealand.
At the time of the trial, the children were aged six and four. The expert evidence in this matter was crucial, with a single expert family report writer being engaged and the Mother adducing evidence from her psychiatrist and psychologist. All of the experts supported the Mother relocating with the children to New Zealand, with a main feature of the evidence in this particular case being the Mother’s mental health was suffering by remaining in Australia, where she lacked no support.
His Honour reiterated that the best interests of the children are the paramount consideration. In relation to relocating matters specifically, the relocating parent is not required to justify why they seek to relocate, the Court’s role is to consider how the children’s best interests will be served by each parties proposal.
The decision
Ultimately, Justice Berman ordered that the Mother be permitted to relocate with the children to New Zealand. His Honour emphasised that both parties had a secure attachment with the children and given the concerns about the Mother’s mental health if she were not permitted to relocate, and the strength in the Father’s attachment with the children, the benefits of relocating outweighed the detriments, particularly in relation to the Mother’s mental health. Orders were made for the Father to spend as much time as practicable with the children.[1]
Relocation to the United States
In another case of Briedies & Saar [2025] FedCFamC1F 91, Brasch J considered a Mother’s application to relocate with the child to the United States, with the Father seeking for the child to remain in Australia and spend nine nights with the Mother and five nights with the Father. Quite different to the earlier mentioned case, in this matter the Father was born in the United States, whereas the Mother was born in Australia.
The facts
In this matter, the parties were residing overseas before moving to Australia when the Mother fell pregnant with the child. It was common ground that the move to Australia was meant to be temporary so that the Mother could receive the support of her parents.
Following the parties’ separation in 2018, the parties negotiated the spend time arrangements for the child. After the Father fainted when the child was in his care, causing the child (then aged 4) to leave the Father’s home and be found wandering the street, the Mother ceased the Father’s time with the child. The Mother then commenced proceedings. The child was around 10 years of age at the time of the trial.
Initially, the Mother sought to relocate with the child to the United Kingdom. As the proceedings progressed through the Court, the Mother amended her application seeking to relocate to the United States. The Father opposed this and, despite being an American citizen, refused to relocate to the United States should the Mother be permitted to move there with the child.
The decision
The Judge considered the advantages and disadvantages of each parties proposal within the prism of section 60CC of the Family Law Act. The Judge found that while the relocation will change the child’s relationship with the Father, given the expert evidence that the child has a strong connection with their father, the Judge found that this gave a solid foundation for the relationship between them to remain strong. The Court applied the principle that although the relationship between the Father and the child will be less optimal, the child will still benefit from a relationship with the Father, from a distance.
His Honour acceded to the Mother’s proposal and permitted the Mother to relocate to the United States of America with the child. Interestingly in this matter, the Judge found that the relocation will not take place until August 2025, given it was the Mother’s evidence that her parents were not going to move reside there until then.
Both of these matters highlight that in considering a relocation application, the Court:
- Looks at the best interests of the children involved;
- Assesses the advantages and disadvantages of the competing proposals;
- If the evidence supports it, the Court can make a relocation order if the relationship between the child and the remaining parent can continue unharmed, with a focus on the benefit of the relocation on the primary carer. If the evidence does not, however, then the application for relocation will be refused.
Kennedy Partners has extensive experience with international matters, with three of our partners being Fellows for the International Academy of Family Lawyers. Feel free to contact us on 03 9618 7300 to discuss international matters that may be applicable to you.
[1] Kennedy Partners acted on behalf of the successful mother in this matter.