Care of children — interim parenting order — relocation — Care of Children Act 2004, ss 4, 5 & 6 — Family Court Rules 2002, RR 34(c), 220 & 416 — Martin v Ryan [1990] 2 NZLR 209, (1990) 6 FRNZ 187 — Zola v Abel [2016] NZFLR 81 — CRA v Family Court at Blenheim [2015] NZHC 1604, [2015] NZFLR 731 — Parker v Parker [2017] NZFC 1959 — Ronin v Rigby [2019] NZFC 5075 — W v W Family Court New Plymouth SP04300101 — Stanford and Smalls [2016] NZFC 3993 — Gurnani v Gurnani [2017] NZFC 9986. The parties had broken up after a ten-year relationship that had produced two children. The current proceedings were to determine whether to discharge an interim parenting order (the order) that had previously been obtained by the applicant. The order had been granted on a without-notice basis after the applicant objected to the respondent's plans to move to a different city, and the parties failed to reach an agreement at mediation. In obtaining the order the applicant had voiced a concern that the respondent would move without consulting him. However he had also claimed at that hearing that the parties had reached an agreement at the mediation. The Court in the current proceedings found that this claim was "absolutely and unforgivably misleading," and expressed doubt as to whether the order would have been granted had the previous Court been given truer and more accurate evidence. Therefore it was in the interests of justice that the order be discharged. The Court directed that a long cause fixture be scheduled to finalise the children's care arrangements. Judgment Date: 4 June 2021. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *