Reserved judgment — parenting order — relocation — leave to commence proceedings — statutory interpretation — Care of Children Act 2004, ss 4, 6, 7, 46R, 48, 49, 68, 139 & 139A(3)(c)(i) — Care of Children Amendment Act (No 2) 2013 — Legislation Act 2019, s 10(1) — Family Court Rules 2002, rr 19, 20 & 416P — United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, art 12 — Hines v Carter [2021] NZFC 13112 — Hines v Carter [2022] NZFC 555 — Carter v Hines [2022] NZFC 7016 — Hines v Carter [2022] NZFC 10350 — Pidgeman v Oliver [2015] NZFC 6585 — Border v Tokoroa [2014] NZFC 10947 — McKenzie v Attorney-General [1992] 2 NZLR 14. The parties were the parents of two children. The applicant mother applied for a parenting order, and also made other applications relating to relocation and the schooling and healthcare of the children. However the Court had already made rulings on these matters less than two years before. Therefore the issue for the Court in the current hearing was whether to grant the applicant leave to file the applications. The applicant submitted that her application for a new parenting order should be granted because there had been a material change in circumstances, being that she was in a new relationship and had a chance to get a new job. The Court found that these matters had already been considered, but the relevant decision had come just over two years previously. The Court therefore granted leave to commence the parenting order application. The relocation, schooling and healthcare applications could only be granted in the case of material changes in circumstances, and the Court found that there were none. The fact that there had been a new dispute between the parties did not qualify as a material change in circumstances. The Court declined the applicant leave to commence proceedings on the children's relocation, schooling and healthcare. Judgment Date: 26 January 2024. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *