Relocation — parenting orders — care arrangements — admonishment — Care of Children Act 2004, ss 4, 5, 68 & 71 — RTM v TAJ [2010] NZFLR 833 — JRR v SMN Family Court Manukau, FAM-2005-057-000366. The parties were the separated parents of two children. Prior to these proceedings, the applicant mother had relocated herself and the children to a different town. She claimed to have been motivated by the children's safety, and her wish to advance their knowledge and access to Te Ao Māori. The issues for these proceedings were whether the respondent had agreed to the relocation, whether the children should remain living in their new home, and the nature and frequency of contact between the children and their father. There had been an incident with the applicant's brother, and both parties were concerned that the brother would return and harm the children. The respondent agreed to the applicant's proposal that she would take the children and move away, though the respondent claims that part of this agreement was that they would return after one year. The Court found that the evidence overwhelmingly supported the respondent's claim, and that the applicant had not made the children readily available for contact with the respondent. It was also found that the move was engineered by the applicant, though her motivations were genuine. The Court was obliged to take the children's welfare and best interests as the paramount consideration, and found that the children had put down roots and made friendships in their new home. They were surrounded by whānau and were able to grow their understanding of tikanga and te reo Māori. The applicant was granted day to day care of the children, and was ordered to meet the cost of transport for weekend and holiday contact with the respondent. Judgment Date: 31 March 2023 * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *