Relocation — day-to-day care — contact arrangements — violence — Care of Children Act 2004, ss 4, 5, 6, 132 & 133 — Kacem v Bashir [2010] NZSC 112 — D v S [2003] NZFLR 81 — Stadniczenko v Stadniczenko [1995] NZFLR 493 — D v W [1995] 13 FRNZ 336. The applicant applied to relocate with her grandson to another town. The child's mother opposed this application and sought day-to-day care of her son. Father had not been involved in the proceedings or his son's upbringing and was prevented from having contact with the child without leave from the Court. The child had been placed in the care of the applicant after the mother was unable to care for him properly. The applicant had had day-to-day care of him for over three years at the time of the application. She wanted to relocate in order to live with her partner, who was deemed to be a positive role model for the child, had a good career and owned a home. The child's mother had a turbulent home life, having been involved in several relationships marred by domestic violence. She also had personal conflict with neighbours, friends and family members. The mother had left a parenting course due to conflict with other attendees. The Judge first dealt with the issue of the child's day-to-day care. It was decided, by a strong margin, that it was in the welfare and best interests of the child to remain with his grandmother. The applicant provided a stable home and was dedicated to her grandson. In comparison, his mother tended to makes choices for her own satisfaction and then try to fit her children in around her lifestyle. She had stopped contact with two of her children for several years in order to focus on regaining custody of the child at the centre of this hearing. Second, the issue of relocation was dealt with. The Judge determined the child would be more safe and have better continuity of care if he remained with his grandmother and was able to relocate. He would be provided with a better lifestyle and benefit from seeing a functional, loving couple raise him. Although he would see his mother and siblings less, the grandmother had familial ties to their current location and would not forget where they came from. She also had demonstrated a willingness to facilitate the relationship between her grandson and his mother. The child's main bond was with his grandmother and this was the bond that needed to be protected and strengthened. Relocation would not mean the end of his bond with his mother and contact arrangements were made to preserve the bond that they had. The child was to return to the current location once per month to visit his mother. Fortnightly contact was available if the mother decided to relocate with her child. Finally, it was ordered that the child was not permitted to stay in his mother's home if she had a partner that had not been approved by the applicant. Judgment Date: 7 September 2018. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *