Order restricting travel — parenting order variation — Care of Children Act 2004, ss 4, 5(a), 5(e), 5(f), 6. The Court was asked to consider the applicant’s (mother’s) request for variance of a parenting order which placed the child in the father’s day to day care, and the respondent’s (father’s) request for suspension of an order preventing the child’s removal from New Zealand. Although the respondent had assaulted the child previously, he had taken steps to address the issue of violence. The Court was convinced that the child was safe in the custody of the respondent, but that unsupervised care with the applicant was at this stage inappropriate due to mental health concerns. In contrast, limiting the applicant’s contact to Skype calls fell short of s 5 principles. The applicant refused to undergo a psychiatric assessment; the Judge held that until an assessment was made and the applicant’s issues were addressed contact between her and the child would be limited to Skype and fortnightly supervised contact by a Court approved supervisor. Suspension of the order preventing the child’s removal from New Zealand was granted so that the child could travel with his father to visit family. The Judge agreed with expert reports that such travel would be advantageous to the child. **Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements.