Relocation and Moving Interstate with Children After Separation

Direct Answer

A parent should not make a material move with a child that would disrupt existing parenting arrangements without first seeking agreement or legal advice. Relocation disputes in Australia are decided by reference to the child’s best interests under section 60CA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and the factors in section 60CC (as substituted from 6 May 2024). Neither parent has an automatic right to relocate, and neither parent has an automatic veto. The Court weighs safety, the child’s views, the child’s developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs, each proposed carer’s capacity, the benefit of relationships with both parents and other significant persons where safe, distance, schooling, housing, support networks, the feasibility of continued time and communication and the workability of the proposed arrangement. Current orders must be obeyed until they are formally changed. Urgent orders may be required where a move is imminent, has occurred, or involves overseas travel. Early legal advice is particularly important for interstate, overseas, unilateral or safety-related relocation.

Contents

• What relocation means in family law
• Change of address versus material relocation
• Intrastate, interstate and overseas moves
• Temporary travel versus permanent relocation
• Why there is no separate automatic relocation test
• The child’s best interests
• Best-interests relocation table
• Existing parenting orders and plans
• Consent before moving
• Family dispute resolution and exceptions
• Applying to relocate
• Opposing a relocation application
• Interim and urgent disputes
• Unilateral relocation and return
• Return, recovery and location orders
• Overseas relocation
• Passports and the Family Law Watchlist
• Hague Convention and non-Hague countries
• Western Australia
• Evidence supporting and opposing a move
• Evidence table
• Relocation proposal checklist
• Family violence and safety-related relocation
• Children’s views
• Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children
• Relocation-options table
• Before-and-after-move table
• Worked examples
• Common mistakes
• Practical action plan
• When urgent legal advice is required
• How Parke Lawyers can help
• Frequently asked questions

What Relocation Means in Family Law

‘Relocation’ is not a term defined in the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). It is a practical description of a proposed move that would materially affect the ability of the other parent, or of another significant person, to spend time and communicate with a child. There is no fixed distance that turns an ordinary residential move into a relocation matter. What matters is the effect on the child’s relationships and on any existing arrangement or order.

A move across a suburb usually does not affect the child’s parenting arrangements. A move between capital cities almost always does. A long-distance move within the same state — for example from metropolitan Melbourne to a regional centre several hours away — can be a relocation matter even though it does not cross a state border. A move overseas is always a relocation matter and carries additional legal issues under travel and international-abduction law.

Because relocation is a description rather than a statutory category, the question is always the same: would the proposed move materially change what the other parent’s time with the child looks like, or defeat any part of an existing arrangement? If the answer is yes, the move should be treated as a relocation matter and legal advice obtained before it is announced, committed to or implemented.

A Change of Address Versus a Material Relocation

Not every move is a relocation. Ordinary residential changes — a move to a slightly larger home, a change of rental within the same school zone, a shift to a nearby suburb because of employment or family circumstances — usually do not disturb parenting arrangements and do not require the other parent’s consent. Reasonable notice, updated contact details and continuity of the child’s routines are usually enough.

A material relocation, by contrast, is a move that changes the practical shape of the child’s week. It usually affects at least one of: the school the child attends, the ease and frequency of changeovers, the time each parent can realistically spend with the child, and the cost of maintaining that time.

The distinction matters because it affects the level of engagement required with the other parent and with the legal process. An ordinary change of address ordinarily requires notice. A material relocation ordinarily requires agreement, consent orders or a court decision.

Intrastate, Interstate and Overseas Moves

Intrastate relocation. A long-distance move within the same state is treated as a relocation matter where it materially affects the child’s arrangements. Regional, coastal and rural relocations from a capital city commonly fall in this category. The best-interests framework applies in the ordinary way, and the fact that no state border is crossed does not reduce the significance of the move.

Interstate relocation. A move to another state or territory almost always affects the other parent’s ability to spend time with the child in person. It usually requires air travel or long road travel for changeover, additional accommodation, planning around school terms and careful cost-sharing. The Court considers the workability of any proposed arrangement carefully, including how young children will travel and how frequent contact will occur.

Overseas relocation. A move overseas is the most difficult category. It changes not only the practical arrangements but the legal environment: the child moves outside Australian family-law jurisdiction for many purposes, enforcement of Australian orders may be limited, and specific travel-law protections engage (passports, the Family Law Watchlist, and, where applicable, the Hague Convention). Overseas relocation requires the other parent’s consent or a court order.

Temporary Travel Versus Permanent Relocation

A short overseas holiday during a school break is very different from a permanent move. Temporary travel with a child usually still requires consent where there are parenting orders, and can be subject to conditions (return date, itinerary, communication, bond). Where the destination is a low-risk country and there is a history of return, temporary travel is often agreed or ordered without difficulty. Where there is a real risk of non-return, or a country from which return is legally or practically difficult, temporary travel may be refused or made subject to significant safeguards.

Permanent relocation is a materially different proposition. It ends the child’s residence in Australia (or, in a domestic case, in the previous location), changes the child’s legal environment and requires a fully developed proposal for continuing the child’s relationship with the non-relocating parent. Framing a permanent move as ‘just an extended trip’ is not appropriate and can substantially damage credibility in later proceedings.

Why There Is No Separate Automatic Relocation Test

Australian family law does not apply a separate, self-contained relocation test. Relocation cases are decided under the ordinary best-interests framework in section 60CC of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). The Court does not require the moving parent to establish ‘exceptional circumstances’ as a threshold. It does not require the opposing parent to establish that the move would be harmful as a threshold. It considers the proposal on the evidence, in the context of the child’s specific needs and relationships, and decides what arrangement — including whether the move should proceed — is in the child’s best interests.

That said, the practical evidentiary emphasis in a relocation case is different from a routine parenting case. The reasons for the move, the practical feasibility of continued contact and the specific impact on the child’s relationships and needs occupy the foreground. Old commentary suggesting that relocation is governed by a stand-alone test should be treated with care.

The Child’s Best Interests

The best-interests framework is the same across every parenting decision. Its detailed content — the paramountcy principle, the section 60CC factors, the ATSI additional consideration in section 60CC(2A), the evidentiary approach, the role of family reports and Independent Children’s Lawyers — is examined in our specialist guide to the best interests of the child. In relocation cases, the framework is applied to a specific question: what arrangement, including whether the proposed move proceeds, best meets the child’s interests?

Safety. Safety of the child and of the child’s carers is the leading consideration under section 60CC(2)(a). Where safety concerns exist, relocation may be part of protecting the child. Equally, relocation should not be used as a tactical device where no genuine safety issue exists.

Relationships with both parents. The benefit to the child of a meaningful relationship with both parents, where safe, is a substantive factor. Distance and travel affect the practical shape of that relationship. A workable post-move arrangement usually has to preserve regular, high-quality contact with the non-relocating parent through extended holiday time, reliable video and telephone contact and, where possible, in-person visits between blocks.

Sibling and extended-family relationships. Section 60CC(2)(e) covers relationships with people significant to the child, including siblings, half- and step-siblings, grandparents, aunts, uncles and longstanding carers. A relocation that separates siblings, or that ends regular contact with a grandparent who has provided significant care, needs a careful proposal to address those relationships.

Developmental and emotional needs. The child’s stage of development, attachment arrangements, mental-health and emotional needs are central. Very young children have particular needs for frequent, shorter contact with attachment figures. Children through primary school are shaped by school, friendships and routine. Teenagers have their own peer, school and activity investments.

Schooling. A change of school is a substantial change for most children. The Court considers the availability, quality and accessibility of schooling at the destination, the disruption of existing school placements, particular needs (specialist programs, additional-needs support) and the manageability of any transition.

Medical and therapeutic needs. Where the child has continuing medical, allied-health or therapeutic needs, the accessibility of comparable services at the destination is directly relevant. NDIS arrangements, disability supports and continuity of treating clinicians are considered.

Cultural identity. Cultural, linguistic and religious continuity is part of the child’s identity and needs. Relocation should be assessed for its impact on the child’s cultural community and practices — not as an afterthought but as a substantive consideration.

The child’s views. The child’s views are a mandatory consideration under section 60CC(2)(b) and are addressed further below.

Practicality and distance. Travel time, travel cost, the frequency of feasible contact, the reliability of communication technology, holiday planning and the coordination of school terms across two locations are all part of the practicality analysis.

Housing and work. The parent’s proposed housing and employment at the destination affect the child’s stability. Reliable, evidenced housing and employment carry weight; vague or aspirational statements do not.

Family and community support. Support networks at the destination, and loss of support at the current location, are relevant, particularly where the parent is caring for a young child, managing a health condition or coping alone. New partners and blended families are relevant to the extent they affect the child’s day-to-day life.

The parents’ reasons. The relocating parent’s reasons and the opposing parent’s reasons are both relevant, but the ultimate question is not which parent is being fairer. It is what arrangement, on the evidence, meets this child’s best interests.

Best-Interests Relocation Table

The following table sets out the way the section 60CC factors typically play out in a relocation case. It is illustrative only and is not a substitute for specific advice.

Existing Parenting Orders and Plans

Current parenting orders are legally binding. A move that prevents the other parent from spending time or communicating with the child as ordered may itself be a contravention under Division 13A and can be reversed by interim orders, recovery orders and return orders. Existing orders should always be reviewed carefully before any move is announced, planned or implemented.

Orders that expressly restrict relocation. Some parenting orders include express clauses requiring the child to live in a nominated area, requiring written consent to any change of address beyond a defined boundary, or prohibiting overseas travel without consent or further order. These clauses are enforceable and should be read carefully.

Orders that do not mention relocation. The absence of an express relocation clause is not a licence to move. If the orders provide for regular time or communication that the move would defeat, the move is not permitted by default. Silence in the orders does not equal consent to relocate.

Parenting plans. A parenting plan is not enforceable in the same way as a parenting order, but it is admissible evidence of the intended arrangement and of what the parents considered appropriate at the time. Where a plan is displaced by a move, the Court will look at the plan alongside the proposed arrangement.

Informal arrangements. Where there are no orders or plans, a longstanding informal arrangement in which the child spends regular time with both parents establishes a status quo that the Court can protect through interim orders where a unilateral move disrupts it.

Consent Before Moving

Consent should be sought before a material move. That is not merely a matter of courtesy — it is the foundation of a workable relocation and a basic expectation of the family-law system. Consent may be obtained through direct discussion, through correspondence between lawyers, through family dispute resolution or through consent parenting orders. Where there is any risk of unsafe or unproductive communication, legal advice should be obtained about the safest way to make the proposal.

The proposal should be made in writing, should be genuinely open (not framed as a completed decision) and should include the detail that the other parent reasonably needs to consider it — destination, timing, reasons, housing, schooling, employment, financial sustainability, proposed time and communication with the child, holiday arrangements, travel logistics and cost-sharing. A written proposal that treats the move as already decided (‘this is happening; here is what you are offered’) usually attracts opposition and damages the applicant’s credibility.

Family Dispute Resolution and Exceptions

Australian family law encourages parents to resolve parenting matters, including relocation, through family dispute resolution (FDR) with an accredited practitioner before filing court proceedings. A section 60I certificate is generally a precondition to filing a parenting application. Where FDR is genuinely attempted, relocation can often be agreed on appropriate terms, and any agreement can be formalised through consent orders.

The statutory exceptions to the FDR requirement include urgency, family violence or child abuse or a risk of either, incapacity, particular contravention applications and consent orders. Where an exception is relied on, the reason must be genuine — improper use of the ‘urgency’ exception can attract adverse costs and credibility findings.

Where FDR is safe and appropriate, an experienced practitioner can help parents work through a relocation proposal in a structured way, test the practical detail of the proposal against the child’s interests and identify options for revised time, communication and travel arrangements. Legal advice should be obtained before, during and after FDR.

Applying to Relocate

Where consent cannot be obtained, an application to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia is the appropriate step. The application usually seeks final orders permitting the child to live at the proposed destination on specified time, communication and travel arrangements, together with any interim orders required in the meantime. The full procedural journey — filing, case-management, family-report preparation, interim hearing, final hearing — is covered in our cornerstone guide to parenting orders.

The application must be supported by affidavit evidence covering the reasons for the move, the destination detail (housing, schooling, employment, support), the proposed post-move arrangements for time and communication with the non-relocating parent, the practical and financial workability of those arrangements and the child’s specific needs. Where safety concerns are engaged, a Notice of Child Abuse, Family Violence or Risk (Form 4A) must be filed.

Well-prepared applications are structured around the best-interests factors, not around the applicant’s desire to move. A proposal that reads as a case for the parent’s freedom of movement rather than a plan for the child usually meets a difficult reception.

Opposing a Relocation Application

A parent opposing a relocation should respond promptly and constructively. Delay, silence or obstruction rarely improves the position. The response should engage with the specific proposal — including practical alternatives to the move, if any — and with the child’s needs, not with generalised objections.

Reliable, objective evidence is critical. Contact calendars, school and medical records, evidence of the child’s established routines and community, the practical feasibility of the proposed post-move arrangement, and the availability of alternatives that meet the moving parent’s underlying concerns are usually more persuasive than untested allegations or adversarial commentary about the moving parent’s reasons.

Blanket opposition to any move can be counterproductive. A response that identifies which elements of the proposal would work if adjusted, and which would not, tends to carry more credibility than a total refusal to engage.

Interim and Urgent Disputes

Interim hearings determine what happens in the period between filing and final hearing. They are conducted on the papers, are usually brief, and are decided on the basis of untested affidavit evidence and, where available, a Court Child Expert’s Child Impact Report. Interim decisions do not resolve the relocation question; they hold the position in a way that protects the child pending final determination.

Interim orders in relocation cases commonly restrain a proposed move until final hearing, provide for the child to remain in or return to the previous location, regulate international travel, place the child on the Family Law Watchlist and address passports. Where a move has already occurred, interim orders may require the child’s return.

Urgency should be genuine. The Court dislikes manufactured urgency and will scrutinise the affidavit for its factual basis. Legitimate urgency includes an imminent move without consent, a move that has just occurred, disputed passport applications, and safety concerns requiring immediate protection.

Unilateral Relocation and Return

A unilateral relocation — moving with a child without consent or orders — is one of the highest-risk decisions a separated parent can make. It can be reversed by return and recovery orders, can be a contravention of existing orders, damages credibility in later proceedings and is treated as significant on the best-interests analysis at final hearing.

A parent who becomes aware that the child has been unilaterally relocated should obtain urgent legal advice. Options include applying for interim parenting orders requiring the child’s return, a recovery order under section 67U where the child is being withheld, a location order under section 67J where information about the child’s whereabouts is needed, and, where overseas removal is threatened, orders directed at passports and the Family Law Watchlist. See our specialist guide to urgent steps to secure a child's return for the detailed recovery-order framework.

A parent contemplating a unilateral move — even for what feels like an urgent reason — should obtain advice first. Where genuine urgency exists, urgent court orders are available and are usually a safer course than self-help. Where safety is not the immediate driver, the case for an ordered process is still stronger than the case for a fait accompli.

Return, Recovery and Location Orders

Return orders. The Court may make interim orders requiring a child to be returned to a nominated location pending determination of the relocation question. Return orders are directed at preserving the child’s existing arrangements and avoiding the entrenchment of a unilateral move.

Recovery orders. A recovery order under section 67U authorises defined persons — typically the Australian Federal Police or a state or territory police force — to find and return a child to a person entitled to have the child live with, spend time with or communicate with them. Recovery orders are used where a child is being concealed, withheld or removed. A fuller treatment of the recovery-order process is planned in a future Parke Lawyers article; this article addresses recovery only to the extent necessary to explain the response to a unilateral relocation.

Location orders. A location order under section 67J compels a specified person or agency to provide information about a child’s whereabouts. It is a preliminary tool where the child’s location is unknown and is often used in conjunction with recovery.

Police and enforcement limitations. Police act on the terms of the order. Enforcement in complex cases can be slow, particularly where the child has moved a substantial distance or where the child’s exact whereabouts are unknown. Practical planning — court address for delivery, safe changeover location, standby carer — assists execution.

Overseas Relocation

Overseas relocation requires the other parent’s consent or a court order, particularly where there are existing parenting orders or a passport application is in issue. Removing a child from Australia in contravention of an order, or during pending proceedings, may constitute a criminal offence under sections 65Y and 65ZAA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and can attract significant penalties.

An overseas relocation proposal should address, in detail: the destination country and city, the legal status of the parent and the child at the destination (visa, citizenship), the housing, schooling and support arrangements, the health system, the child’s proposed time and communication with the non-relocating parent, the practical and financial workability of travel between the two countries, and the safeguards that would apply to protect the child’s return in the event of a change in circumstances.

The Court considers overseas relocation cases carefully because the child’s access to Australian protection is different once the move occurs. Return, enforcement and variation become more difficult, and the practical burden of maintaining the relationship with the non-relocating parent is greater.

Passports and the Family Law Watchlist

Passports. A passport application for a child under the Australian Passports Act 2005 (Cth) usually requires the written consent of every person with parental responsibility, unless a court order dispenses with consent. Where consent is withheld, the Federal Circuit and Family Court can make an order under section 65ZC or section 11 of the Passports Act enabling the passport to issue in defined circumstances. Passport disputes commonly arise alongside overseas relocation or temporary overseas travel proposals.

Family Law Watchlist. The Family Law Watchlist is a border-alert system administered by the Australian Federal Police. Where the Court is satisfied that there is a genuine risk of a child being removed from Australia contrary to an order or pending proceedings, it can order that the child’s name be placed on the Watchlist. Watchlist requests require a legal basis — usually current or pending family-law proceedings — and cannot be made simply as a precautionary measure without that legal basis.

Airport intervention. If a child is listed on the Watchlist and there is an attempt to travel, the Australian Federal Police can prevent departure at the airport. Watchlist orders should be in place before any risk of departure eventuates — after-the-fact requests may not be effective in time.

This article does not, and should not, provide instructions for evading travel controls or removing a child from Australia unlawfully. Parents concerned about international movement of a child should obtain urgent legal advice.

Hague Convention and Non-Hague Countries

The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980 provides a return-oriented remedy between participating states. Where a child under 16 who was habitually resident in Australia has been wrongfully removed to, or retained in, another Convention country in breach of custody rights, the left-behind parent may apply through the Australian Central Authority (in the Attorney-General’s Department) for the child’s return, subject to defined exceptions.

Return proceedings under the Convention decide whether the child should be returned to the country of habitual residence. They do not determine long-term parenting arrangements — those are decided in the country of habitual residence after return. Convention proceedings move relatively quickly by international-litigation standards but are legally complex and require specialist advice.

Not every country participates in the Convention. Where the destination country is not a party, or where the Convention does not apply, return depends on the local law of the destination country, on diplomatic channels and on any bilateral arrangements. Return can be slow, expensive and, in some cases, not practically achievable. This makes early legal advice — before an overseas move is proposed or implemented — particularly important.

Western Australia

Western Australia has a distinct family court and, for de facto (non-married) parenting matters, a distinct statutory framework under the Family Court Act 1997 (WA). Married-parent matters are dealt with under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) but through the Family Court of Western Australia. The substantive best-interests analysis is broadly consistent with the Commonwealth framework, but the procedural system is separate. Parents relocating to, from or within Western Australia should obtain advice from a family lawyer familiar with the WA jurisdiction.

Evidence Supporting and Opposing a Move

Relocation cases are heavily evidence-driven. The written material filed on interim and final hearing usually carries the case, particularly where cross-examination is limited. Reliable, contemporaneous and objective evidence carries more weight than argumentative affidavits and selective communications.

Housing. Lease documents, purchase contracts, floorplans, area maps, safety information and school-zone confirmation.

Employment. Contract or offer letter, salary, hours, start date, evidence of the industry and reasonable expectation of continuity.

Schooling. Enrolment confirmation, curriculum information, transition plans and, where relevant, evidence of specialist programs and waitlists.

Medical services. Referrals, treating clinician correspondence, waitlists, NDIS plans and any specific arrangements the child requires.

Family and community support. Statements from support persons describing their role, location and availability, together with evidence of the existing support the child receives.

Travel logistics. Route maps, journey-time calculations, flight schedules and costings for typical trips, evidence about whether the child is old enough to travel accompanied or unaccompanied.

Communication. Devices, connectivity at both homes, proposed schedule for video and telephone contact, arrangements for the child’s private time with the non-relocating parent.

Care history. Diaries, calendars, school and medical attendance records, message threads, and independent third-party evidence of who has done what over the relevant period.

Family violence and safety. Intervention orders, police narratives, treating clinician evidence, incident logs and evidence of any safety plan or protective arrangement.

Cultural connections. Evidence of the child’s cultural community, language and religious practices at the current location and at the destination.

Compliance history. Evidence of each parent’s history of compliance with orders and agreements is often relevant to whether proposed post-move arrangements can be trusted to work.

Evidence Table

Relocation Proposal Checklist

The following checklist is a practical starting point for preparing a written proposal. It is not a court template and should be adapted to the family’s circumstances with legal advice.

• Proposed move date and reasons for that timing
• Destination — city, suburb, region or country
• Housing — address, tenure, floorplan, safety and school zone
• School — name, enrolment confirmation, transition plan
• Childcare or after-school care where applicable
• Medical services at the destination
• Therapy, allied-health and disability support where applicable
• Employment — role, contract, hours, salary
• Financial sustainability of the household
• Family support at the destination
• Community support — cultural, religious, sporting, social
• Cultural connections and continuity
• Weekly parenting arrangements after the move
• School-holiday arrangements — by year and by term
• Special-occasion arrangements — birthdays, Christmas, Eid, cultural events
• Transport arrangements — road, rail, air
• Air travel — accompanied or unaccompanied minors
• Travel costs — allocation, booking process, budget
• Escorts for young children — who, and how paid
• Telephone and video communication — schedule and protection of time
• Notice of travel — advance notice, itinerary
• Passports — arrangements and safeguards
• Interstate or overseas safeguards — Watchlist, itinerary, return conditions
• Exchange of school reports and medical information
• Emergency arrangements — health, welfare, contact
• Review mechanism — how the arrangement is monitored and adjusted
• Dispute-resolution process — FDR, mediation, or specified pathway
• Contingency if the move does not proceed

Family Violence and Safety-Related Relocation

Relocation is sometimes proposed to secure the safety of a parent and child, to access safer housing or support networks or to remove the child from an environment that is causing harm. Family violence is defined broadly in section 4AB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and expressly includes physical, sexual, psychological, emotional, economic and coercive- controlling conduct.

Where family violence has occurred or is reasonably apprehended, relocation may be part of a protective response. Coercive control may substantially affect a parent’s practical ability to remain in a particular location; confidential-address provisions may apply; current parenting and intervention orders must be considered together; and interim orders can protect the child while the substantive dispute is worked through.

Safety concerns should be particularised and, where possible, supported by objective evidence. The Court treats family violence seriously and considers safety as the leading consideration under section 60CC(2)(a), but it also affords procedural fairness. Allegations are neither automatically accepted nor automatically rejected. Both understatement and overstatement of safety concerns can affect credibility.

Family dispute resolution may be unsafe or inappropriate in family-violence cases and is one of the recognised exceptions to the section 60I certificate requirement. Legal advice should be obtained about the safest pathway. Where interventions are already in place, the interaction between an intervention order and any parenting proposal must be considered carefully.

Self-help — for example unilaterally leaving with the child without any advice or plan — creates legal and practical risks even in family-violence cases. Where safety is at risk, urgent orders and specialist services are usually available and offer a safer course. For the safety framework that often runs alongside parenting matters see our guide to family violence intervention orders in Victoria.

Children’s Views

There is no fixed age at which a child decides where to live. The child’s views are a mandatory consideration under section 60CC(2)(b) and are weighed alongside age, maturity, understanding and the circumstances in which they were formed. A young child’s views will contribute little that can be directly expressed as a decision; an adolescent’s settled and independently formed preference may carry substantial weight but does not automatically decide the case.

The child’s views may reflect deep concerns about safety, attachment, cultural or community identity, school and friendships. They may also reflect immediate reactions, exposure to adult conflict, loyalty binds or coaching. A view expressed in response to a parent’s question at a moment of tension is not the same as a view expressed to a family report writer or Independent Children’s Lawyer over time and in a considered setting.

Children should not be asked to choose between parents. Placing that choice on a child is generally considered harmful and is not what the section 60CC framework asks for. The child’s views are ordinarily obtained through professionals — a Court Child Expert, an Independent Children’s Lawyer, a family report writer — not through direct questioning by parents or statements written for the litigation.

Teenagers present specific issues. An older child may simply refuse to travel or to comply with an arrangement they do not accept, and that practical resistance can affect the orders that are workable. But the Court is cautious about treating a teenager’s refusal as a final answer, particularly where the refusal appears to reflect adult conflict rather than the child’s independent assessment.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children

Section 60CC(2A) requires the Court, in addition to the section 60CC(2) considerations, to consider the child’s right to enjoy their Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander culture and the likely impact of any proposed parenting order on that right, including the child’s right, in community with other people who share that culture, to maintain a connection with family, community, culture, country and language.

In a relocation case, section 60CC(2A) requires close attention to whether the proposed move preserves or disrupts the child’s connection to family, kin, community, culture and country. Culture cannot be treated as an occasional activity or as satisfied by an annual visit. A relocation proposal involving an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander child must address these connections substantively — through the destination’s Aboriginal community links, cultural education, family involvement, return-visit plans and support for cultural participation.

Every Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander family is different. Kinship structures, cultural obligations and connections to country vary substantially. The Court considers cultural evidence with the assistance of professionals familiar with the relevant community and does not apply a uniform assumption about family structure.

Relocation-Options Table

The following table summarises the main practical options that arise in relocation matters. Each row requires careful qualification and specific advice.

Before-and-After-Move Table

Worked Examples

The following worked examples are illustrative only. They are not real cases and are not predictions of outcome. They are intended to show how the best-interests framework is applied in different relocation situations.

1. Interstate employment offer. A mother with primary care receives a genuine job offer in another state that would materially improve household stability. The father opposes. The Court weighs the reasons for the move, the impact on the father’s time and the workability of proposed post-move arrangements. Outcomes range from permission on conditions (extended school-holiday time, structured video contact, shared travel costs), to a deferred move tied to a milestone, to refusal.
2. Regional move for housing affordability. A father with equal time proposes moving to a regional area two hours away because he can no longer afford metropolitan housing. The Court considers alternatives at the current location, the practical burden of the additional travel on the children and workable holiday and weekend arrangements.
3. Return to family support. A parent proposes moving closer to extended family who provide substantial support with a young child. The Court considers evidence of the actual support offered, alternative supports at the current location and the child’s existing relationships.
4. Equal-time arrangement. Parents currently share equal time. One proposes to relocate. The Court weighs the impact on the equal-time pattern (which is not preserved by any presumption), the workability of a modified arrangement and the child’s specific needs.
5. Alternate-weekends arrangement. A child spends alternate weekends and one weeknight with one parent. The proposed move would prevent the weeknight and reduce the weekend to a monthly block. The Court considers whether the modified pattern preserves a meaningful relationship or eliminates it.
6. Very young child. A parent proposes moving interstate with a two-year-old. The Court considers frequency of contact appropriate to attachment needs, air-travel practicality for very young children and interim arrangements pending review.
7. Teenager with strong preference. A fourteen-year-old strongly wants to move with one parent to another state. The Court considers the child’s views alongside the maturity and circumstances in which they were formed, the practicality of a workable arrangement with the other parent and the child’s specific needs.
8. Child with complex medical needs. A child has ongoing medical treatment at a specific tertiary centre. Relocation would end that continuity. The Court considers alternative services and whether the change is manageable.
9. Siblings with different needs. Siblings have very different needs. A move suits one but not the other. The Court considers the sibling relationship, the individual needs of each child and the risks of separation.
10. Unilateral move. A parent moves interstate with a child without consent or orders. The other parent applies urgently. The Court considers a return order pending final determination and the impact of the unilateral conduct on the ultimate best-interests assessment.
11. Imminent school-holiday move. A parent announces a move during the term-two holiday and books removalists. The other parent applies urgently. Interim orders address timing, schooling and return of the child if necessary.
12. Safety-driven relocation. A parent proposes moving to escape family violence. Confidential-address provisions, intervention orders and safe changeover arrangements are considered. Safety is the leading consideration.
13. Overseas offer. A parent is offered a role overseas in a Hague Convention country. The Court considers the workability of trans-national contact, passport and Watchlist orders, and safeguards on return.
14. Return to country of origin. A parent proposes to return with a child to their country of origin, which is not a Hague Convention country. The Court considers whether return is enforceable, whether contact with the other parent can realistically continue and the practical implications of the destination country’s legal system.
15. Unaffordable travel. Proposed post-move travel costs are unaffordable to the non-relocating parent. The Court considers cost-sharing, subsidised travel and, where necessary, the impact on whether the move is workable at all.
16. Regular grandparent care. Grandparents provide significant weekly care. The move would end that. The Court considers section 60CC(2)(e) and the practical impact on the child.
17. Aboriginal child. An Aboriginal child would lose regular connection to community and country. The section 60CC(2A) consideration engages directly, and the proposal must address cultural continuity substantively.
18. Extended-holiday proposal. The relocating parent offers extended school-holiday time and structured video contact. The Court considers whether the offer preserves a meaningful relationship and the workability of the specific arrangement.

Common Mistakes

• Assuming that the absence of an express relocation clause means a move is permitted
• Moving with a child before agreement or orders
• Announcing the move as a completed decision
• Focusing on the adult’s reasons and treating the child as a passenger
• Failing to engage with the child’s relationship with the other parent
• Offering vague assurances about contact instead of a detailed plan
• Underestimating door-to-door travel time and fatigue
• Failing to identify suitable schooling or housing
• Assuming family support at the destination automatically determines the outcome
• Treating equal time as a legal entitlement that must be preserved
• Asking the child to choose which parent to live with
• Coaching the child or preparing statements for the litigation
• Relying on selective messages or edited screenshots
• Ignoring intervention orders or downplaying their terms
• Minimising family violence or, conversely, weaponising unparticularised allegations
• Failing to propose realistic alternatives to the move
• Failing to address passports and overseas risk when applicable
• Withholding the child in retaliation for the other parent’s conduct
• Breaching current orders in the belief that they will be revisited
• Delaying urgent legal advice when a move is imminent or has occurred
• Publishing details of proceedings or identifying the children in breach of section 114P of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Practical Action Plan

1. Obtain and read all current parenting orders, parenting plans and intervention orders
2. Identify whether the proposed move would materially affect current arrangements
3. Assess any immediate safety issues
4. Define the reason for the move, the destination and the proposed timing
5. Prepare detailed information on housing, schooling, work, medical services and support
6. Calculate realistic travel time and cost
7. Prepare realistic post-move arrangements that preserve important relationships
8. Consider the child’s developmental, cultural and medical needs
9. Obtain legal advice before making any irreversible commitments (job acceptance, lease, school enrolment)
10. Propose the move in writing without treating it as a completed decision
11. Attempt family dispute resolution where safe and appropriate
12. Formalise agreement through consent orders where suitable
13. Apply to the Court before moving if agreement cannot be reached
14. Obtain urgent advice if a move is imminent or has already occurred
15. Comply with all current orders unless and until they are changed
16. Address passports and international-travel safeguards early
17. Keep the child out of adult negotiations and away from litigation content
18. Preserve objective evidence — calendars, communications, records

When Urgent Legal Advice Is Required

Urgent advice is important where a move is imminent and consent has not been obtained; where a child has been taken interstate or overseas without consent; where an overseas trip is proposed and disputed; where passports are in issue; where safety concerns are pressing; where existing orders would be breached by a proposed move; and where an application for return, recovery, a Watchlist order or a passport order is being considered.

Delay in these situations materially reduces the options available. Interim orders, recovery orders and Watchlist orders are more effective when made before a move than after; enforcement of Australian orders overseas is materially harder than prevention.

How Parke Lawyers Can Help

Parke Lawyers advises separated parents across Australia on relocation, parenting orders and urgent applications. We prepare relocation proposals, respond to proposed relocations, negotiate consent orders, run contested applications and appear on urgent interim, return, recovery and Watchlist matters.

Our family-law team is led by Julian McIntyre. For the firm’s broader family-law practice see our Family Law service page, for the full procedural journey through parenting orders see our national cornerstone guide to parenting orders and for the detailed section 60CC framework see our specialist guide to the best interests of the child. For the wider separation lifecycle see our cornerstone guide for separating couples. For related topics see our guides to consent orders and parenting arrangements after separation.

Frequently Asked Questions